New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 48
75
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


it's not the only time in the video that happens. to me it's an obvious attempt to make the video less useful to study.

with all the deliberate camera jolts and the focusing out, with pretty much a blank screen is a sure sign of obfustication or NASA does not know how to use a camera.

ignoring the obvious is silly




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   




that is a direct contradiction to the claim that this was never released publicly, and was instead intercepted.

not to mention it is very easy to stabilize an image and eliminate the effects of shaking. if they wanted to make it hard to study they could have done it much more effectively by other means.

don't look for conspiracies everywhere. they are exceedingly rare and where they do exist, they will be much better concealed than that.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
There is no need to "quote" the post directly above yours.

We can all scroll up and down..

Mod Edit: Quotes – Please Review This Link.

Continued practice of this could result in a warning..

Thank you

Semper

[edit on 7/7/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

double post.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by JScytale
 


Isn't it funny how those glowing jelly type creatures live way way way down deep in the ocean.And don't splooge implode/apart.



[edit on 7/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]


that's because they are specifically adapted to that environment and - you guessed it - solid. guess what happens if you put them in a lower pressure environment? they "splooge apart" very quickly.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


wake up new guy,

it was intercepted and NASA knew some people were going to see it. in my opinion the video was manipulated then sent to the satellite where Stubbs got it from. the video has obviously been manipulated for obfustication purposes.

sure you can stabilize a video but it makes it much more difficult for the average Joe to see what's really going on. fortunately i am well aware of that


and don't ever tell me where to look for conspiracies , i already told you five pages back that i will label you the boogyman if you continue this operandi. the old look the other way, there's nothing to see here does not work on me.

since the majority of this video is mostly out of focus , over exposed , and camera jolted......which would you agree to

NASA does not know how to use a camera or the video has been compromised with obfustication techniques ?

there's no other choices,........ what say you ?







[edit on 8-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale
 


wake up new guy,

it was intercepted and NASA knew some people were going to see it. in my opinion the video was manipulated then sent to the satellite where Stubbs got it from. the video has obviously been manipulated for obfustication purposes.


Easynow, this is hilarous.

The adjustements you see and exemplified (the shaking), are happening because :
1) the tehter is slowly drifting away from the frame, so the need to adjust the direction where the camera looks, to keep tehter in the center of the frame. This is NATURAL. When adjusting the direction, it is clear that that is NOT a manual camera holded in the hands, but is a mounted camera somewhere, and its position is changed remotely, with some mechanisms. So, that's why the shaking.
2) The sun light is at a low angle, not far away (as an angle) from the axis of the camera lens, hitting directly the frontal lens/glass of the camera, and making lens flares. This is obviously. And this is a situation where it is hard to aquire a good contrasted image. It seems you NEVER photographied something with a powerfull source of light (sun, reflector, whatever) in front of your lens. When you are in this situation, it is NATURAL to try to adjust settings to aquirre a better image. Even the astronauts talk about this "trying to get a better image) in the movie.

Indeed, you construct conspiracies even where they are not. Try to be a better photographer yourself, and then, after, you may try to discover real conspirations. Here is not any "obfuscating" using shaking, etcetera. Here it may be your lack of understanding how optics/aquiring images devices works.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


no what's hilarious is you saying the camera jolt is from the need to "adjust the camera for direction"

that is the funniest thing i have read so far from you DOF


you don't really believe that do you ?

i dare you to show another example of what your saying from another shuttle missions.

and don't tell me i have never photographed anything, you have no idea what i have done.

it's obvious i am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 


no what's hilarious is you saying the camera jolt is from the need to "adjust the camera for direction"

No, it is not hilarious, please look better to the sequences.




Originally posted by easynow
i dare you to show another example of what your saying from another shuttle missions.

with this statement, you shift the burden of proof from you. Of course, it will be hard to find exactly the same shaking, so please forgive me the next 2 months, i wiil be very ocupied watching all the NASA videos i cann get, to show you that NASA cameras can shake when remote controlled (this beeing an extraordinary claim from me, so this is why the need to make extended research to please your "easy conspiration").

It is obviously a shake due to remotely controlling shifting of position of the camera (and because it is on a zoomed state, every shake is greatly exagerated).


Originally posted by easynow
and don't tell me i have never photographed anything, you have no idea what i have done.


I have no idea, true, but when you "wonder" to basics facts from the optics/photography, it is not a supotition of what you do or not in your private life, but it is a logical conclusion from about what you are saying/not understanding.






[edit on 8/7/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 8/7/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

So in a PRIVATE communication he supported JLW but when that PRIVATE message was displayed to the public, and he was questioned on it... he RETRACTED




Interesting indeed.

But pay close attention to the words he doesn't use and what he doesn't retract:

"You may be assured I am also quite certain there are no `alien' craft in
space, artefacts on the moon, etc, etc, a point I in fact have made to
Lenard/Walson. "


*Now Zorgon, wasn't JLW also speculating that these craft in orbit were from the Secret Space Program?

Mr Gilmore certainly didn't retract this former statement in his letter to Oberg:


"You might also be interested in a journal produced by the
MIT Lincoln Laboratory - which is the group which has built some of the things you are seeing. Much of what they do is what used to be the
Star wars project, which no doubt involves some of your objects."


...This unretracted statement is the one which most interests me.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by zorgon

So in a PRIVATE communication he supported JLW but when that PRIVATE message was displayed to the public, and he was questioned on it... he RETRACTED




Interesting indeed.

But pay close attention to the words he doesn't use and what he doesn't retract:

"You may be assured I am also quite certain there are no `alien' craft in
space, artefacts on the moon, etc, etc, a point I in fact have made to
Lenard/Walson. "


*Now Zorgon, wasn't JLW also speculating that these craft in orbit were from the Secret Space Program?

Mr Gilmore certainly didn't retract this former statement in his letter to Oberg:


"You might also be interested in a journal produced by the
MIT Lincoln Laboratory - which is the group which has built some of the things you are seeing. Much of what they do is what used to be the
Star wars project, which no doubt involves some of your objects."


...This unretracted statement is the one which most interests me.


Exubie, the point remains, why don't any other amateur skywatchers with great optics see ANY of the same things Walxxx claims to have photographed? And he can't even describe orbital motion correctly -- counting on a target audience that has no clue about satellites have to move, to remain satellites. Re such an audience: Is your hand up?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I don't quite understand why this discussion about JLW stuff here..sure is not a discussion continued from another thread?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Its really swamp gas light bouncing off of the shuttle , no wait, its really weather balloons, no wait, its really an out of focus camera with inexperienced astronauts, no wait, its really just some ice out there, no wait, its really reflections in the window, no wait......



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I think the camera shake is the most natural movement in that video.

Considering the distance at which the tether was and the level of zoom needed, any small movement would be amplified by the zoom, as you probably know if you ever tried to keep a far away object in the frame while having the zoom to the maximum.

Apparently, this was a fixed camera (nobody can be that steady with a hand-held camera, not even in weightlessness), and the movements were made by electric motors that rotate the camera in the desired direction. As the motors were not made to start and stop slowly, the result is the camera shake.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Guess you don't have much interest in wildlife then.
If you did and bothered to research,you would find that they do come up to just below the surface.

Wether from a evolutionary design or by them making a slow ascent,matters not.The principle that applies to them can apply to critters.

Sorry Zorgon,I know that's your term but I seem to have that locked in my head now.


[edit on 8/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   




this is hilarious.
marinebio.org...
www.thenakedscientists.com...
library.thinkquest.org...

the only way for a deep sea creature to surface would be an extraordinarily slow ascent, and its survival would not be guaranteed even then. this causes their organs to expand greatly even with a controlled ascent - and most of them have hard exoskeletons - so even there it is more than likely for them to "pop".

and regarding the camera shake theory - are you guys serious? it is so amazingly counterintuitive and if NASA wanted to make the event hard to study while filming it privately, the easiest way would be to *not* release it period - altering the footage and then specifically sending it to a satellite where they knew someone was monitoring (
, as if that is even possible) is one of the dumbest ideas i have ever heard of for hiding something. You're talking about NASA, not gas station employees.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


You are so linear,you just can not see the principles,examples and more.

To long in the same field I would say.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   





when it comes to extraordinary claims, show me extraordinary evidence.
linear? hah! i don't talk about what I want these things to be. I don't talk about what I wonder about. Why? It is purely imagination and has no place in the discussion.

logical approach to a case =/= linear and closed minded.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thanks ArMaP



I think the camera shake is the most natural movement in that video.


so your saying there are unnatural movements in the video ?




Considering the distance at which the tether was and the level of zoom needed, any small movement would be amplified by the zoom, as you probably know if you ever tried to keep a far away object in the frame while having the zoom to the maximum.


yes i understand that my friend, i cannot argue that point




Apparently, this was a fixed camera (nobody can be that steady with a hand-held camera, not even in weightlessness), and the movements were made by electric motors that rotate the camera in the desired direction. As the motors were not made to start and stop slowly, the result is the camera shake.



yes that is most likely true but i contest that the jolting of the camera is not all because of needed repositioning of the camera. there are at least three scenes where an object crosses paths with the tether and the jolt occurs when, in my opinion it did nothing to better the FOV.

i am proposing that the timing of some of these type of events are instigated on purpose for obfustication. of course i can't prove this and it is nothing but my opinion. make of it what you want but have you ever noticed in some NASA UFO videos the camera does these weird shakes and pan/zooms outs when a UFO appears in the FOV ?

example...





i have more if you really want to see them, this is just to show you what i am talking about. also just to clear things up about me laughing at DOF's post: i was laughing because i believe the timing of some of these camera movements are intentional for obfustication and not because the motors on the cameras cannot shake the camera. but i will say that i would like to see some examples (from the shuttle) as extreme as we see in the STS 75 video for comparison.

thanks again ArMaP









[edit on 8-7-2009 by easynow]





new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join