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: 52
77
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

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


Also it depends on their brightness and size. My 1 milimeter very bright (like debris in space lit by the sun light) pin is very visible no matter how unfocused is, but the windows particles of dirt filmed by Sereda are very dimm, so, unfocused loose almost entirely their low brightness not speaking that background is much more bright.. and remember, bokeh is transparent!

That's why Sereda speaks bogus, selecting only what is needed to fool the uninformed people.

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

they are close when compared to the tether.


that's just your opinion and you cannot prove it


and let's assume this video is legit and there is nothing wrong with the camera




the object they zoom in on is FAR AWAY and makes the notched appearance of the object

that means the objects in the tether video could also very well be far away.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

the object they zoom in on is FAR AWAY and makes the notched appearance of the object

that means the objects in the tether video could also very well be far away.


Seems you tottally missed my previous posts.

Why when focusing closer in STS-75 focus maneuver just explained, your "far and big" notched disk actually became smaller and brighter? Think more of this imposibility if your object is far and big.

Second, as i just said, bokeh is the same no matter the unfocused object is further or closer than the plane where camera is focused. That's why the notched bokeh appeareance in the "Moron Antidote" example, where a star is filmed defocused.



[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 





the video in my above post proves that the objects could be far away




this video proves the objects might not be close to the camera




you have your theory's and i have mine



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
you have your theory's and i have mine


theory like theory, but you miss DIRECT EVIDENCE:



explained here www.abovetopsecret.com...

which eliminate the posibility of far objects, actually reffering to the (notched) discs there, the same discs which Sereda claim there are far and big. No way, Jose. You can't explain the shrinking and focusing of the discs in the focusing maneuver if those are "big and far". You contradict basic optics!

[edit on 4/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




you have NOT proved.....

that all the objects in the entire video are close to the camera !





















[edit on 4-8-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by easynow]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
that's just your opinion and you cannot prove it
That's right, I can not prove it, in the same way that nobody can prove that those objects were ice crystals or huge ships invisible from Earth, for that we would need more data than what we have.


the object they zoom in on is FAR AWAY and makes the notched appearance of the object
Out of focus works both ways.
If the camera is focused to a short distance then far away objects will be out of focus; if the camera is focused to infinity, objects closer to the camera will be out of focus.


that means the objects in the tether video could also very well be far away.
That is another problem, we do not really know if the tether was really focused. As they change the focus we can assume (but only that) that they tried a shorter and a longer focus, and this was the best they got for the tether.

So, if the tether was on focus and at such a large distance, for the other objects to be out of focus they need to be much closer than the tether.

And the distances depend on the lens used, knowing the lens characteristics is the only way of knowing what is the on-focus limit when the lens is focused on infinity.

I don't know if you know about it or not, but in a lens system, when we change the focus there are two distances, a closer and a far away distance, and any object between those two distances will be in focus. If we set the focus for 20 metres, for example, a lens system may show on focus all objects between 18 and 22 metres; all objects out of that section will be out of focus. As when we focus to infinity it's not infinity but a large distance, if my hypothetical lens has infinity set as starting at 2000 metres, it will show on focus all objects farther away than 2000 metres and all objects closer than 2000 metres, but only up to the lens limit, that could be, for example, 200 metres, so all objects between 1800 and infinity would be on focus.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP

ok thanks ArMaP,




That's right, I can not prove it



at least we agree on that


so we are right were we started then, trying to explain this...





posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

Yes.


That's the problem with this case, we can look, we can discuss it, we can try to use filters and make experiments but after 1027 replies and 52 pages we know the same about those images, even if we may have got more knowledge about other things (I know I have).



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by easynow
 

Yes.


That's the problem with this case, we can look, we can discuss it, we can try to use filters and make experiments but after 1027 replies and 52 pages we know the same about those images, even if we may have got more knowledge about other things (I know I have).


For what it's worth, having read & viewed a great deal about this over the years & after reading all of the 1,072 replies & 52 pages of this thread, I believe I do have more knowledge about this.

I am now convinced it's debris, etc.. that's out of focus.

That is not the position I started with, some time back.

The discussions & arguments have been extremely interesting.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Cant remember if I have already posted on this thread,but will do again

A couple of people(one a good friend of mine)filmed bright objects high in the sky and when zoomed in they were identical to these craft on the tether clip.
The lady who filmed it also made some big money with the tabloid press blowing up the photo and using it

I saw the bright object myself with the naked eye and persumed it was the Mir station or ISS(when Mir was up there!)
And was amazed when my mate showed me the footage he took of a pulsating tether craft

Of course what I was realy seeing was dust!Sorry you cant debunk the tether objects just like that.If people can see these craft from the ground with the naked eye from time to time and when filmed and zoomed in they pulsate with that slice of pie shape missing section in the tail section it blows anything you say right out of the water



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
That's the problem with this case, we can look, we can discuss it, we can try to use filters and make experiments but after 1027 replies and 52 pages we know the same about those images, even if we may have got more knowledge about other things (I know I have).


Complicated words
. Simply said: there is not enough information from the movie to identify all and every light there. Yet the closer out of focus bits of debris explains all what we have there as manifestations, but when accepting "all" we really have to learn a lot about physics, optics, orbital motion, shuttle activities, 2D projection of motion etc etc etc.

But, the reality is that debris particles is a common fact happening in missions. very common. A little less common (but yet it happens) is to catch them in right conditions of illumination, angle, zoom, camera setting etceterra.

Can we identify every or just one point there as beeing debris? or Ice? or a little flake of insulation? or part of the constelation "Urine-on? (
). No. But we have a big probability of those beeing just like that. And we have clues showing they are closer, out of focus, and following the shuttle in it's orbital path with 8 km/second.

I'd like to make a parralel here:

Here is my collection of claimed by me bugs and birds taken in my holidays. But if you look, there is a nice collection of UFO's (unidentified flying objects) caught on camera.
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...


And i have a couple of tens of examples. Almost none of them were filmed on purpose by me, it just happened.
I say there are only bugs and birds.
But can i demonstrate 100% that those UFO's in my pictures and movies, are just birds and bugs, and not alien or military crafts, flying in my unimportant country (Romania) or whatever my mind can imagine? Should i transform myself in the "secret-romanian-man" publishing the "truth" or "government secrecy" based on this "unexplained UFO's caught on camera?
No. I just don't have enough information.
I can't demostrate 100% that many of those are just birds and bugs.
Yet, exactly like debris on space near the human activities, birds and bugs are common. So common that they appear in images many times in "misterious" appearance.

So, in this respect, what's happening with this alleged UFO-s seen in NASA videos, is essentially the same: can't demonstrate what they are (this is a ice particle eliminated at 8 o clock time on this direction with this speed, the other one is a flake of insulation form this part of the shuttle etc). But we can find solutions based on common probability and common sense (and a bit or more KNOWLEDGE about some domains), which explain every phenomenon or characteristic seen there.

What is really a UFO as a world mistery, is what DEFY all the explanations.
NASA STS-75 "UFO's" doesn't defy any explanation. Just defy the little knowledge of many people about how debris acts in space, how optics operates, etc. More you know about one aspect or another..more "misteries" dissapear.

Are they unexplainable? Yes, but only as a personal experience. Ussually they are unexplainable just because lack of enough information describing them.
Are they "OMG 100% proof of alien NASA videos and secrecy?" No, they are just a subject of speculation, fuel for some interests or interest$$, made just by the lack of enough real information.

Are they, or some of them alien ships, military or critterrs?
Maybe. Which one? And based on what? There is no proof. Just a lack of information. And more, more speculation, wild imagination and even a religious hate about those who tries to find common explanations.





[edit on 5/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



religious hate


no don't bring religion into the discussion...


no really if you have never seen a real ufo then you will look for the mundane explanation. for people that have seen them, they know to look for ufo's because they do exist.

are there some ufo's in this tether video mixed in with debri that was purposely released to cloud the FOV ?

you might not think so, but i do


[edit on 5-8-2009 by easynow]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield[/url]


religious hate


no don't bring religion into the discussion...




my mistake, should be wrote "religious-like" hate.


Originally posted by easynow
no really if you have never seen a real ufo then you will look for the mundane explanation. for people that have seen them, they know to look for ufo's because they do exist.


I also believe alien ships or maybe other unknown phenomenon exist, as a logical conclusion when trying to understand how big is the universe, and knowing that we, people, don't know already everything.

as for "UFO" as what definition exactly means..UFO exist 100% because we all see things we can't explain just due to not having enough information. (like my collection of bugs/birds...actually they are UFO's , no?)



As for people seeing "real "UFO" as you say.... many times they confuse things.... they say "i can't explain what i see, therefore is OMG unexplainable), but many times, there is the same lack of enough information describing the phenomenon, plus lack of enough personal knowledge and experience...look how there are people believing that sattelites (with iridium flares) for example think of them as "unexplainable"...or a chinese lantern on a night will perplex many witnessess....so finnally they act in favour the "UFO" not mundane explanation just based infact on a confusion...the bad is in their perplexity they try to deny the mundane explanation just as protecting their feelings...this is human behaviour..this is SUBJECTIVITY.

And of course, there are sightings of people beeing witnesses of really unexplainable phenomenons... only this are the real stuff.



Originally posted by easynow
are there some ufo's in this tether video mixed in with debri that was purposely released to cloud the FOV ?
you might not think so, but i do



Now this statement is interesting.
So you say there are debris in the image?
I thought there are only critters and alien ships attracted by the tether, from many proponents here are saying and argumenting about how debris in space can't be seen (yourself just posted a Sereda bogus explanation with that dirt on the glass), or ice quickly sublimating in space so it can't be seen also, and even how debris will only goes in one direction and other this kind-like arguments.

So there in STS-75 images are debris.
Which one is debris and which one is UFO/critter?
Can't say the difference?
There are debris on purposely put by NASA to obfuscate real critters/alien-ships? Especcially when their transmission was not public, but only (unknown by NASA) received by some secret-nasa-mans?
So debris in space looks like critters/allien ships, or viceversa, so the "alleged" obfuscating method is a good solution? Wow...

So, actually...the movie itself is...without any real value? All it matters is only the rumor that NASA hidden thinks? Only the STORY behind? The movie itself shows only debris and debris-like objects, can't say which one which is? Then..why promoting videos on every channel, videos showing NOTHING CONCLUDENT?





[edit on 6/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield



I also believe alien ships or maybe other unknown phenomenon exist


interesting statement from you depthoffield, i am glad to see your open to this possibility. and your right we humans can only make guesses as to what is really going on with this phenomena. that's one of the reasons i believe there is more to this STS75 video than meets the eye.



as for "UFO" as what definition exactly means


yes 'ufo' is a subjective terminology and there are too many things that can fit into this classification which sometimes makes this subject even more confusing.

the ufo's i am most interested in are the ones like what i have seen with my own eyes and i also had some kind of unexplainable contact with. so what i have seen was not just some dot in the sky or something that could have been a balloon or sky lantern. i understand the differences of these type of ufo sightings. what i witnessed was a ufo that acted with unmistakable intelligence, something everyone in the ufo community would love to see for themselves or capture on camera.

i don't share all the details of my story because i have no pictures and anything i say will be ridiculed and twisted and turned around in a way to discredit me. i have experienced this already the few times i have brought it up in this forum. some people can't handle the idea that i have seen what i believe to be a real alien ufo.

now i won't sit here and tell you that i know for a fact this ufo was from another planet because obviously i wasn't out in space watching it approach planet Earth but i do know for a fact this ufo was extremely high up in the atmosphere when i first noticed it. i won't say anymore about my sighting because like i said some people will tell me i was just imagining things or hallucinating and i don't need to be bothered with public ridicule.


what does all this have to do with this NASA ufo video ?


well from the countless ufo reports that have been going on for decades now, many of them are very close descriptions of what i have also seen. for me that means there is somekind of object flying around this planet going unchecked and doing whatever it wants. this means that there is a strong possibility that if what i am saying is true then the possibility's exists that some of these ufo's were observing the tether.

why not ? after all the Foo Fighter ufo's were watching airplanes during WW1 and WW2 and they look like some of the objects in the NASA video if you ask me.



also there are other ufo pictures showing these same type of object like the ones Zorgon posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and this case...where some witnesses claim the ufo's came from space and i understand why they say that because i have seen it myself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


i could go on and on and on about ufo cases that proves something is watching us. why they are watching is the question.





So you say there are debris in the image? I thought there are only critters and alien ships attracted by the tether



i said that back on page 31 but i guess you missed it ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


some people believe there are critters in the video and some people might believe it's mixed and some people might believe there are only a couple ufo's hidden in all that mess. the problem is, and just like ArMaP and i both agree...we need more information to say one way or another. so until that happens i will keep all possibility's open, hence my reasons for posting Sereda videos which i noticed you can't stand...




So debris in space looks like critters/allien ships, or viceversa, so the "alleged" obfuscating method is a good solution? Wow...


so looking at the picture of the Foo Fighter ufo's that i posted above..

would you be able to tell the difference between a Foo UFO, verses a ice particle in one of these black and white NASA videos ?

no you can't and only the actions of the objects will give clues to seperate them or distinguish them apart.



can't say which one which is?


i can speculate on that yes...... but today no

i am not ready to present my evidence due to technical problems and other reasons beyond my control. and even if i did, would it prove anything to you ?

i doubt it












[edit on 6-8-2009 by easynow]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Sorry, but these little white dots moving around the tether look nothing like close up objects in the aperture of a camera focused on a distant object. cLose up objects become very big and look translucent. Close up objects also retain their shapes, and ice crystals twinkle. All this has been gone over before. The only evidence that Depthoffield is offering is his superior ability to analyze video footage. Get out your camera and do your own experiments. These dots are NOT close up objects. There obviously is some camera distortion, but it looks more like they are playing with the gain than the focus.

As far as it being debri floating just outside of the shuttle, nine days into the mission, it simply wouldn't be there, and especially not in that quantity. We have a NASA study that describes this. Effluent dumps and vector thrust firings shoot out and way from the shuttle and quickly fall back to the Earth. The debri that can be seen floating outside of the shuttle comes from particulates and moisture that settled into the cracks of the shuttle while it was on the ground, that work there way out of the cracks as the shuttle orbits the Earth. Nine days into the mission, the are all pretty much gone, you might see one stray particle, but not the number in this video.

This is a unique video, which is why it has garnered so much attention. If the de-bunker argument that this is small particle floating outside of the shuttle had any merit, there would be numerous videos with this stuff floating around.

Clearly these little white dots are UFOs, Most likely they are at least 10 meters away from the shuttle, probably much further. These things exist, once again, the NASA study confirms this. I think the camera distortions greatly distorts their size. I still say plasma is the best explanation.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I am blown away by this thread & the especially by the AMAZING VIDEO that is on page 1. I am humbled by the work done by everyone on the posts & will comment after I read all the pages! The video is an example of what I always hoped would happen when I first released it. ...I've been on holidays...so that's why I am only now seeing all this this!
Martyn Stubbs



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman


No wonder you didn't respond when I rattled your chain.
but I though you knew Luna Cognita?

Holiday? What's that?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
no...I don't know Luna, but she did a creative & fun video..& look at this threads size, as a result!

There are so many posts, let me say this...

Some of the posts are what lawyers call an "ad hominem" argument. It means that, instead of addressing the substance of a person's argument, you bash them personally.

It is invariably the weakest kind of argument. But often it's the easiest. Which is why so often it is used by the likes of NASA UFO skeptic Jim Oberg in preaching the virtues of NASA, one of the least trustworthy sources of information about any shuttle
anomalies on NASA videos. Anybody who disagrees with him is invariably an evil person.

That is why I am not at all surprised to read the usual vitriolic reactions to this new STS-75 analysis. Unfortunately many negative findings are presented in a kind of dense scientific jargon, which is another way of saying they try to 'blind you with science'!

They do this without any use of all the non-downloaded video NASA also shoots & brings back to Earth, on videotapes & multiple types of film. We need more than words. We need to see the still "embargoed" video of the tether 100 miles away. If there were not UFOs, then show these other videos taken after the tether breaks.

Yet, they do not. Instead it's more talk.
I am posting my videos on the new ATS video sight. Skeptics should do the same with the NASA provided videos.

And instead of smearing the researchers, skeptics should at least acknowledge the
possibility that these are space craft we are seeing on the STS-75 video.

Don't expect, though, that you'll ever be able to disagree with Oberg & his ilk in a rational manner. They simply resort to "ad hominem" attacks!

The only satisfaction is you'll know you won the argument.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
They do this without any use of all the non-downloaded video NASA also shoots & brings back to Earth, on videotapes & multiple types of film. We need more than words. We need to see the still "embargoed" video of the tether 100 miles away. If there were not UFOs, then show these other videos taken after the tether breaks.


I'd be interested in the argument that such other videos exist. When would they have been taken? In the period between the tether break and the famous video of the swarms, a few days later, was the tether even observable from the shuttle?



new topics




 
77
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join