New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

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"

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

you don't really believe that do you ?
[]

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

and

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by ArMaP

 

thanks ArMaP

[]

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

[]

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

Easynow, you laughed hard, but you laughed wrong. I explained the same think as Armap, as those posts are there to be seen from everybody, only that Armap (thanks!) explained a little more detailed the phenomenon of shaking at long zooms especially. And since you are friends, (unlike me beeing the unknown "silly" debunker, you recognised that you laughed maybe too...deep). Anyway, is good when someone accept as wrong, at least partially, some subjective phrases said by him...something that the most proeminent "mistery proponents" here ussually don't do it.

Now, you say about examples in STS75 where timings of shakings are deliberate choosed to obfuscated some well defined so-said "critters". Yeah...but as anybody can see, a whole lot of so-said "critters" are seen good, without any "obfuscation", a good example is that slowly big pulsating so-said "critter" crossing the frame from left to right slowly right in the frame (and our eyes), for that Zorgon posted here some animations in his wrong quest to show "shape not depending from position in the frame". So, in this case, what the NASA "obfuscating" guys are doing? How they let it not "obfuscated" to be clearly seen? Damn, incompetent "obfuscating" guys there at NASA!


And..NASA deliberately put the transmision on the satelite knowing for some "secretnasaman"'s are there to intercept it.... this is way too .. exagerated (to not say more).. Instead, if i was NASA, i didnt broadcast anything, or i will encrypt those suposed secret transmisions, it was much more cheapest and not source of headache.





[edit on 8/7/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 8/7/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by easynow
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 ?

And what about reaction times?

In the example you posted this is very noticeable, the camera moves at the exact same time that the object appears.

Now, think that you are controlling a camera and you know that some objects may appear at any time from any angle. You would have to be looking for strange objects on any part of the screen, you would need enough time to understand in which direction the object was moving (you did not wanted to follow the object by mistake) and move the camera according.

Try it for yourself and you will see that this is not easy to do.

I haven't looked at the STS-75 video to look for those camera movements, but if I remember it well, all movements are in the same direction.

PS: the reaction time is around 0.25 seconds for common people in normal conditions, that would translate into between 8 and 6 frames for a video or movie.

reply to post by depthoffield

Easynow, you laughed hard, but you laughed wrong.

no no no, i did not laugh wrong. you misunderstood why i was laughing.

and you started it with this....

Easynow, this is hilarous.

i have my reasons/opinions which i cannot state here of why you are wrong and i can understand why you think me laughing at your explanation is crazy so....since i cannot prove my theory than i will publicly apologize to you if you feel that i have offended you in anyway.

you have done a great job in presenting your side of the discussion here and i do appreciate it more than you might realize. maybe someday i will show you why things are not what they seem with NASA videos. you need to think outside the box a little more is all i will say to you.

thanks for your hard work depthoffield, you deserve much credit for what you have presented to us and i am sorry if i offended you in any way









reply to post by ArMaP


thanks ArMaP,

Try it for yourself and you will see that this is not easy to do.

yes exactly , i know this,,,, the question you need to start asking yourself is how could this be accomplished if what i am proposing is true ?

prior to release editing is the only way. think about it.

no need to respond to that if you don't want to, i can't prove it and it's just a theory as of right now.

thanks again

More on dust particles

New Space Observations: Early Forms of Inorganic Extraterrestrial Life?
July 08, 2009

An international research team announced a breakthrough in self-replicating plasma crystals which could be an early form of inorganic life. New studies of dust that form lifelike structures suggest that extraterrestrial life may not be carbon-based at all. Researchers at the Russian Academy of Science, the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany, and the University of Sydney observed particles of inorganic dust form helical structures and go through other "lifelike" changes.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

See ya...

same source:

www.dailygalaxy.com...

The other half of the inorganic life argument is that the helices "self-replicate" - specifically, they'll "replicate" if another suitable site for the formation of a helix is right next to an existing helix. You might notice that that isn't self-replication. It's just making another helix, so the whole things like claiming clouds are water-based lifeforms because once one appears you often get a bunch more.

The worst weakness is that most of their pretty pictures (and make no mistake, this is a "Pretty Picture Paper") are only computer simulations. Simulation is an essential tool in modern research, but you can't move ahead based only on what the model tells you. If you're claiming that certain plasma columns can move around and replicate, you'd best actually see some of them before claiming that one of the ten million results you can get out of an adjustable model is particularly good-looking and therefore science.

It's great to see scientists increasing their understanding of PR - but not at the expense of accurate reporting.

reply to post by zorgon


very interesting article Z,

here is a link to the research info,



www.iop.org...

We examine the salient features of this new complex `state of soft matter' in light of the autonomy, evolution, progenity and autopoiesis principles used to define life. It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally.

Can faster evolution rates be achieved for non-organic structures, in particular, in space consisting mostly of plasmas and dust grains, i.e. of natural components spread almost everywhere in the Universe? If yes, then the question to address is: are the above necessary requirements of self-organization into a kind of a `living creature' present in plasmas containing macro-particles such as dust grains? Here, we discuss new aspects of the physics of dust self-organization that can proceed very fast and present an explanation of the grain condensation into highly organized structures first observed as plasma crystals in [9, 10]. We stress that, previously, important features of these structures were not clearly related to their peculiar physics such as plasma fluxes on to grain surfaces, sharp structural boundaries, and bifurcations in particle arrangements that can serve as memory marks and help reproduction. The plasma fluxes strongly influence interactions of dust particles, sustain the boundaries, and realize the energy transduction. We discuss experiments which indicate the natural existence of the memory marks in helical dust structures, similar to DNA, and natural mechanisms of the helical dust structure reproduction.

the whole concept is extremely thought provoking and i am glad to see other theory's being explored with this. you certainly have to think outside the box on this stuff





did you see the new critter video i posted earlier ?





[edit on 10-7-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by JScytale


You talk about plasma as if you know all about it, when you are still struggling with the concepts of theories and laws, and of course there are principles.

While I like the site you provided a link to, where you claim the sun is made up entirely of plasma, you ought to consider where this claim that the sun and stars are made up entirely of plasma is on the hypotenuse to princple scale of proof, cause highly controversial hypotenuse would be about right with this concept.

Science was sure that matter only existed in three states, solid, liquid, and gas just a few decades ago, and now they are starting to recognize plasma, but the knowledge base is still extremely small. What other states of matter exist on stars, we don't have a clue about.

Currently we do know that plasma exists in space.

please do some reading sometime, there really is no controversy on the sun's composition. Thanks to spectral analysis we understand perfectly it's elemental composition, and that it is entirely in a plasma state. The only real mystery is what the composition is in its very core - but we understand rather clearly what goes on there. Oh, and we've known about plasma for over a century.

Originally posted by poet1b
While I like the site you provided a link to, where you claim the sun is made up entirely of plasma, you ought to consider where this claim that the sun and stars are made up entirely of plasma is on the hypotenuse to princple scale of proof, cause highly controversial hypotenuse would be about right with this concept.

Sorry, I'm not getting your meaning here. Do you really mean 'hypotenuse', or did you mean 'hypothesis'?

reply to post by JScytale

we understand rather clearly what goes on there.

You do have a bad habit of hanging to what is without allowing any leeway when replying.
Maybe if you would use certain terms now and then,you may not have to keep getting a lot of the flak,that you do.

Terms such as
'what we know at this present time' or
'could be subject to change when more study/evidence finding has been done'

I could say a few more,but come on you know them anyway.
Stop being so hard on yourself and use them.

We do like you though.
Always welcome to join in a group hug.



[edit on 11/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]

reply to post by JScytale


Yeah, right, if you think scientists here on Earth have anything but a faint guess of the sun's composition, then you are kidding yourself. Basically, what you have are people defining anything that is not solid, liquid, or gas, as plasma.

If there exists plasma life forms, there is also the very real possibility that these life forms can evolve intelligence. Maybe they are able to create matter at a atomic level, which enables these creatures to create machines far beyond our basic understanding.

Originally posted by easynow
did you see the new critter video i posted earlier ?

The one with the sperm like swimming thingy? Yup Luna sent me that one. The slow motion is cool, isn't it?

Space Sperm STS48

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/469a2cdaca94.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by JScytaleThe only real mystery is what the composition is in its very core -

So its 100% plasma... therefor there are no molecules of hydrogen, helium etc in solid state but we don't know the composition of the core..

Yup that makes sense

First, no, plasma does not refer to anything that is not a "solid, liquid or gas" - it is very specifically defined. Plasma is a state of matter where electrons break free of nuclei. Just like a solid is a state of matter where the electron bonds are very strong. Just like gas is a state with weak to no inter-molecule bonding.

Second off, Spectral Analysis is a tremendously accurate method to analyze the exact chemical composition of a star.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

books.google.com... ei=agdZSvryCsOVtgfOxrjdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

[edit on 11-7-2009 by JScytale]

Attention All Members,

Just to reiterate..

Continued quoting of the post directly above your own, will result in your post being removed and you possibly being warned.

Thank you

Semper

Science was sure that matter only existed in three states, solid, liquid, and gas just a few decades ago, and now they are starting to recognize plasma

And more recently, the possible fifth state of matter, the Bos-Einstein Condensate. A critical component to current anti-gravity theory...

Google Video Link

reply to post by JScytale


Spectral analysis is an accurate method of determining chemical composition, but not plasma structure. All we have are theories about the structure of the sun, and considering how little we know, these theories are not very solid.

While we have known about plasma for a long time, our knowledge about plasma is still very limited, and we have only just began to understand this state of matter that is probably the most abundant state of matter in the known universe. The odds are very high that we will discover that plasma exists in many unique and different states.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by zorgon

 

[edit on 10-7-2009 by easynow]

IF you ACTUALLY watch the video the camera moves BEFORE the object appears so more bs claims on your part!

reply to post by wmd_2008



thanks you just proved you have no idea what your talking about

nice try but epic fail

[edit on 14-7-2009 by easynow]