It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 51
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by easynow
if an Astronaut admitted to seeing or leaked info about UFO's wouldn't that be a threat to national security ?...

Oh come on ow... how do 'critters' pose threat to national security? They are curious and playful, but they haven't made any threatening moves

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
That looks like the STS-80 footage.

It is but its in color... hence my asking where it came from

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

Then again they might NOT. Whats really interesting is the fact that the critters/ufo's whatever you guys want to call them is the fact they happen to look like lens anomalies whats the chances of that.
Also regarding the STS-80 video its obvious the camera moves BEFORE the object appears to shot up so how can anyone accuse the camera operator of trying to hide it.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:20 AM
reply to post by zorgon

playful ?

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:29 AM
reply to post by easynow

Yeah kewl... my daughter saw it smile
around .24

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by easynow
if an Astronaut admitted to seeing or leaked info about UFO's wouldn't that be a threat to national security ?... it seems some people want you to believe Astronauts would just blab out everything they know and not get in trouble for it.

Like Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell? They've made it plain they were never briefed or constrained in any way about commenting on UFOs. Are they liars?

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

you bringing up examples from 40-50 years ago is a good indication to everyone that your getting too old for this and are grasping at straws.

why the selective quoting ? you left out this part ...

updated 12:47 p.m. ET, Thurs., June 11, 2009

For 15 years, scientists have benefited from data gleaned by U.S. classified satellites of natural fireball events in Earth's atmosphere — but no longer.

A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released,

did you purposely leave that part out of the quote because your ignorant to it ? and/or , your just not willing to admit , you might be wrong ?

which is it ?

[edit on 29-7-2009 by easynow]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by easynow

What is the meaning of "Zoom compensation"?


posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Ah, but lightning creates a vacuum, or a vacuum is created by the plasma, or allows the plasma to be created? This isn't known for sure, only that there is a vacuum in the equation.

Here is an interesting article on plasma.

Following this line of reasoning a little further, it is interesting to contrast these schools of thought, Gravity versus Electricity, from another philosophical perspective. As it happens, the gravity-dominated paradigm is rich in dark models and metaphors. Black holes, dark matter, and dark energy are unknowable entities.

Light does not escape black holes, so they are unobservable; dark matter and dark energy are by definition unobservable. Accepting these abstractions as reality means accepting that about 99% of our Universe is unobservable and unknowable. Beyond that idea being just depressing, it is scientifically unsatisfactory and a philosophical dead-end.

In the Electric Universe, 99% of the Universe is plasma: observable, measurable plasma. This is a state of matter we can replicate in a lab and study. We see it every day in the lightning and the aurora of our terrestrial skies and in the static electricity when we take off our sweaters. The Electric Universe paradigm speaks of light, of “coronae,” “glow mode,” “sparks,” “lightning,” and so forth. The two paradigms did not set out with these dark and light metaphors a priori. The metaphors evolved after the fact. However, it is interesting how the two metaphorical systems evolved so differently.

What are the odds that there are many states of plasma?

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

To some people, anything that can't be explained looks like a lens anomaly, even it it doesn't look anything like a lens anomaly. Even with a NASA study that states there are things being caught by the camera that can not be explained, it must be a lens anomaly, to some people.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
So ummm waht part of THIS on the cover of that NASA report do you not understand?

That is on the front cover of a public transmission transcript... and you think they will tell you anything important?

Have you ever looked at NASA's OFFICIAL information release policy? You are aware that they fall under the DoD and have for some time? Google is your friend I already posted this in many threads

You might want to read this...

Preventing release of classified information to the media.

(a) Release of classified information in any form (e.g., documents, through interviews, audio/visual, etc.) to the news media is prohibited. The disclosure of classified information to unauthorized individuals may be cause for prosecution and/or disciplinary action against the NASA employee involved. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding classified information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for preventing any unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.23 for internal NASA guidance on management of classified information. For further guidance that applies to all agencies, see Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information" and its implementing directive at 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2004.

(b) Any attempt by news media representatives to obtain classified information will be reported through the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs or Installation Public Affairs Office to the Installation Security Office and Office of Security and Program Protection.

(c) For classified operations and/or programs managed under the auspices of a DD Form 254, "Contract Security Classification Specification," all inquiries concerning this activity will be responded to by the appropriate PAO official designated in Item 12 on the DD Form 254.

(d) For classified operations and/or information owned by other Government agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, etc.), all inquiries will be referred to the appropriate Agency public affairs officer as established in written agreements.

Even for just 'sensitive' information...

Preventing unauthorized release of sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information/material to the news media.

(a) All NASA SBU information requires accountability and approval for release. Release of SBU information to unauthorized personnel is prohibited. Unauthorized release of SBU information may result in prosecution and/or disciplinary action. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding SBU information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.24 for guidance on identification, marking, accountability and release of NASA SBU information.

(b) Examples of SBU information include: proprietary information of others provided to NASA under nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement; source selection and bid and proposal information; information subject to export control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR); information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974; predecisional materials such as national space policy not yet publicly released; pending reorganization plans or sensitive travel itineraries; and information that could constitute an indicator of U.S. government intentions, capabilities, operations, or activities or otherwise threaten operations security.

(c) Upon request for access to information/material deemed SBU, coordination must be made with the information/material owner to determine if the information/material may be released. Other organizations that play a part in SBU information identification, accountability and release (e.g., General Counsel, External Relations, Procurement, etc.) must be consulted for assistance and/or concurrence prior to release.

(d) Requests for SBU information from other Government agencies must be referred to the respective Agency public affairs officer.

Sorry to burst your little bubble but NASA has no obligation to tell you anything if someone labels it 'classified' or 'sensitive'

thanks Zorgon,.......... i somehow missed this

it appears they are worried about secrets getting out to the media ?

so how can anyone believe Astronauts are just free to blab away about secret info

reply to post by ArMaP

google search will give you some clues on that. at this point i cannot comment on the techniques that LunaCognita used on the video i have.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by easynow]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Yeah kewl... my daughter saw it smile around .24

Yikes !

did it look like this ?

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by easynow

No critters don't have teeth... but that is a cute stealth kitty

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:37 PM
Remember i've said that i have direct evidence from STS-75 videos, that the particles in question are enough CLOSE to camera in order to appear defocused as bokeh?

Here it is:

First, a part from well known video:

direct link since embeding don't seems to work now, or i forget how:

At sec 19, there is a brief focus action on the lens done probably from the guys on the ground controlling the shuttle camera, in order to be sure for the sharpest (best focused) image on the tether.

Here is an animation with this brief focus action:

I marked on the image different stages of the focusing action, in order to have a better correlation between focus plane and how object appear.

What's happening there?

Well, first, before this action, camera lens is focused to infinite, in order to make a sharp clear image of the things on big distances, assimilated with infinite position of focus on every lens. (This "infinity" term is a technical fact from optics and photography, every photograph or optics specialst knows about it)
The object situated on that infinite distance relative to the camera, making the point of interest, is the tether.

But, at 19 sec mark, the operators of the camera, feels that the camera is not well focused, judging the thickness of the tether on the image they see on the monitors (actually the thickness is a image artefact of the senzor or recording device used, not a property of the tether itself), so they decide to check the focus, maybe they can aquire a better focus..this is a natural action when using a lens (amateurs may not feel this need, since ussually they have automatic focusing camera and don't care a bit about technical stuff...but in the land of manual adjusting, this checking of focus is just natural). So the operators, briefly adjust the focus. They move the focus plane closer to the camera for a few moments. We can see how the tether briefly grows in thickness as a result of out of focus state. But we can see also, in the same time, that many "orbs" there, actuallly shrinks down and raise their brightness and many of them became extremly sharp, points of light, well focused bright points of light. Now, every photographer and optics specialist will recognize this "shrinking" shape of the discs, together with increasing brightness, and even transforming in sharpest points, as a result of those objects acquiring FOCUS in those moments (for the others, a matter of experience).

Now, remember the camera focus closer, and many "critters", or alien ships" became more or even best focused in exactly that moments. What that it means? It means that those objects aquiring sharpness and getting good focus, INDEED ARE CLOSER TO THE CAMERA, and when the lens is focused on the tehter, they are out of focus! Essentially the continous focus changing from infinite to closer and back to infinite really describe a good 3D depth perception of the space near the camera. You can get the same when changing focus when filmimg how snow flakes are falling in front of your camera (i can't do it right now, but it is a simple experiment)

Look again:

No matter that focusing action give direct clues to out-of focused discs made by closer little particles, but, more, you can see if you pay attention, a big notched orb slowly moving in the center of the image, and, as lens focus is changing to closer, it shrinks down and get better brightness (so it acquires better focus), but yet appearing as to go behind the tether). Now how is this posible, as you listening to Sereda's bogus claims that those discs are really behind the tether and have 3 miles in diameter?

This, remember, is the illusion of "behind" of the actually nearer-out-of-focus transparent bokeh:

direct link since embeding don't seems to work now, or i forget how:

FACT is that those objects are very close to the camera and NOT near the very distant tether, close enough to be out of the depth of field of the lens when it is focused on infinite, so close enough to appear as BOKEH (out of focus airy discs), with it's properties: transparency, shape of the disc not related anymore to the real shape of the particle, but to internal lens aperture..we discussed this thinks before.

Not understanding depth of field, bokeh, focus and how optics operate? Then... this should be NOT a reason for thinking just at alien stuff and denying what you may not know know... little boring basic technicall stuff.


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Here i propose some basic stuff regarding optics:

First, some theoretics examples, of how images are focused, or not focused, made by lens and then by catadioptric mirrors (yes, the doughnut-like bokeh makers!) considering small objects (almost point-like) just like debris particles are ussually.

In the following examples, the green line is the senzor/film where the image is captured.

First, Fig.1, we have a lens focused on object O1, making the image at I1 position.

and here a bigger version:

Since senzor is exactly in that plane where I1 is forming (this means when we say "lens focused on O1"), we have a sharp focused image of the O1 point-object. So, the image captured is also a point, what we expected. The distance from the lens to the I1 image is F1. Practically, we have a primary cone of light starting from O1 vertex, going through the lens as the base of the cone, and then another secondary cone of light from the lens to the vertex of this cone which is I1.


Next, Fig.2,we have a more closer point-object, called O2, but the lens still focused on O1, so the senzor is still at F1 distance.

and here a bigger version:

Now here, the I2 image will form a little further from the lens (practically the lens have a constant power of "bending" light). Here we have a de-focused situation. Because the secondary cone of light is interrupted by the senzor before going to the I2 vertex, basically on the senzor we will record only a section through that cone of light, which is a "loaded" circle, a disc (assuming the lens itself aperture is a circle). This is called bokeh, and that's why bokeh imitate the shape of the lens aperture, because is a section through a cone made by the lens shape. More, because the light from the O2 object is not concentrating anymore into a point, but into a larger disc, we have the same amount of light but on a greater surface, which means a smaller average brightness of that disc comparing with the focused situation.


Next, Fig. 3, we have an even much closer point-object, called O3, but the lens still focused on O1, so the senzor is still at F1 distance.

and here a bigger version:

Here, the image I3 would be formed even further from the lens. Instead, actually we have again only a section through the cone of light where the senzor is, but the disc is bigger than on situation from Fig.2. This is a much more defocused situation. The bokeh now is bigger, but is also dimmer. This is the RULE: more defocused, more dimmer (and transparent) the bokeh. Remember, bokeh is NOT a reflection or something, but is actually the image of the object producing it, but a very distorted image of it, we called "defocused", which didn't maintain anymore the shape or brightness of the object (when is small enough) but will maintain it's motion if any


Next, Fig. 4, we have another situation: a farther O4 pointed-object, further than O1, but the lens still focused on O1 (senzor is still at F1 distance).

and here a bigger version:

Now, the image I4 is forming BEFORE the sensor, but the rays of light doesn't stop there, but goes until hitting the senzor. This is again a "defocused" situation. We have here a third cone of light, with vertex on I4 and base on the senzor. On the senzor we will record again a disc, which is also bokeh.


Next, Fig.5, we will have a point-like object very far away, O5 named, so, actually the rays comming from there are parallel (for example a star). In photographic or optics term, this object is placed on "INFINITY". But the lens is untouched, still focused where object O1 was placed (senzor is still at F1 distance)

and here a bigger version:

Now, the image I5 will form closest to the lens, again ahead of the senzor. Again, rays of light doesn't stop there, but goes until hitting the senzor, but we have a more defocused, bigger and dimmer bokeh disc.
So, another RULE here, no matter the defocused object is closer or further from the plane where lens is focused, we will get rounded discs (bokeh) (again, assuming that the lens aperture is a circle). (Maybe you know this, but if the lens have an iris made from 6 blades for example, we will have a hexagonal shape of the lens aperture, so, the bokeh will copy this shape and will be also hexagonal. Sure you may have seen this.
Here is another extreme example of bokeh copying the shape of the lens aperture, give it a try! )


In Fig 6, we take again the object O3 (from figure 3) but we will focus the lens on it. (Move the senzor at F2 distance from lens, where image I3 is made)

and here a bigger version:

Because in focus, what we capture now is a point of light, similar with O3 object. We are in focus now at O3 object.


In Fig.7, we will focus on "INFINITY", where the object O5 is. So, we will move the senzor at F distance from the lens. This distance coresponding to the infinity focus position, is called FOCAL LENGTH OF THE LENS in optics.

and here a bigger version:

Since we have a focused situation, the image is clear, a point, I5, representing the image of the O5 point-like object.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:40 PM

Now, more close to our issue here... NASA is using ussually catadioptric lens, actually with mirrors (, primary because they are light and smaller at the same parameters comparing with a glass refractive lens and doesn't suffer from chromatic abberation (very important when it is desired a wide wavelength spectrum to be used).

In Fig8, we have a mirror focused on O5 object in infinity.

and here a bigger version:

Unlike the lens which refract ("bend") the light received, here the mirror reflect the light received. The senzor will cast a shadow on the mirror, but since it is focused, the shadow also became like a cone with vertex I5, where it dissapear. The image is a point, a well focused image of the original O5 point-like-object, and is made by the rest of the cone light made by the outside part of the mirror receiving the light. Pretty hard to explain this in words, but i'm sire you can use your mind to understand the principle.


Finnally, we will make doughnuts!

In Fig. 9, the same mirror, untouched, so still focused on infinity, but receiving light from a much closer object, the O4 object:

and here a bigger version (use it!):

Now, what's happening? The image of the closer object will form further away from the mirror, in the I4 position, at F4 distance (greater than F distance in Fig.8 where the senzor is placed also in this fig. 9). But since the senzor will interrupt the cone of light (and shadow!) reflected by the mirror before converging on the vertex I4, we will get BOKEH. But now, we have a different one..a disk with black a doughnut!

That's why out of focus little bright objects in NASA videos will try to appear as discs with black center (doughnut). They use mirror- catadioptric objectives.


This i felt to share with you regarding why doughnut-like bokeh. But we have a lot more to understand about optics, before wonder ourselves in the face of the "miracles" seen on images recorded by optical instruments.... principles like depth of field and factors influencing it, hyperfocal distance, different kind of perception illusions in 2D images recorded by senzor/film of an actually 3D reality etc.

Here some links to those trully interested to understand more about optics:

Some basics:

About BOKEH:

About Depth Of Field and factors influencing it:

a MUST: especially full version 112 MB in size, direct download:
another tutorial:

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

FACT is that those objects are very close to the camera

if the objects were close to the camera and the camera is zoomed all the way you would not see them

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by easynow

That depends on how far away from the camera they are, they are close when compared to the tether.

From my own experiments (that, unfortunately, I cannot do any longer, I had to return the camera to its owner), a small (5mm) tin star five metres away still appears as a round object when seen through a camera focused on infinity.

PS: Is it just me or does Sereda's hair makes him look like he is upside down?

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

FACT is that those objects are very close to the camera

if the objects were close to the camera and the camera is zoomed all the way you would not see them

wrong. study more, and don't let be fooled by bogus artists like Sereda which select only what is good for him. (actually contradicting his own experiment with some keys in front of a camera in his documentary

This object here is a head of a pin, 1 milimeter or smaller in size, and the lens is focused about 6 meters away or more (could be very well focused to infinity, like here in the second experiment:

clearly, you can see it's produced BOKEH.

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:22 PM
double post

[edit on 4-8-2009 by easynow]

new topics

top topics

<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in