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: 57
77
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by poet1b
What it does mean is that claims that these must be objects within a few meters of the shuttle simply isn't true.
That depends on the definition of "a few metres", I never thought these things were closer than, for example, 5 metres, because I know they would be completely too much out of focus and invisible.


Poet1b denies the obviously: debris near the shuttle is something common.

But, Armap, you put a 5 meter limit and assume those out of focus closer particles should be "too much out of focus and invisible". Why that?

Then, here, remember my experiment, it is a small particle (1 mm), lit by the sun, placed only 1 meter away from the camera:



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.

So , a 1 mm particle (BRIGHTLY LIT - this is important! and this is the situation with debris in space) close 1 meter to the camera, even when zoomed on infinity, can produce a bokeh disc.

Of course, my camera can and have another depth of field when compared with NASA camera. Nevertheless, the optical principle is the same. That is why it is a principle.

Of course, the value of the limit itself is not important, important is that objects closer that the nearer limit of the depth of field interval of the lens will appear as bokeh.

Also, remember it? (:lol ) here we have another closer bokeh from smaller specs of light (some reflections), this time done by NASA camera-s itself.
What distance you feel that is from camera to the astronaut, and from camera to the out-of-focus notched-bokeh reflexions in this case?
Here it is:


Originally posted by depthoffield


2) SECOND EXAMPLE:

This is taken from STS-6.
During the mission, astronauts are going outside on an EVA. The sequence is filmed, as astronauts themselves said, with the "AFT TV camera" (maybe someone can give details about it).

Here is the entire sequence narrated by the astronauts:





And here is just the slowed down sequence, showing how iris mechanism of the camera is closing down:




What we see...astronauts trying to get outside, and camera focused on them, on the background of the image. But there is some part of the shuttle or it's structures, can't say for sure what, and this structure is closer to the camera, partially blocking the view. And because is closer, much closer that the near limit of the depth of field interval of the lens, it appears very unfocused, very blurred. On the same time, there are some edges, or snags of that closer structure, which reflects loccally the light (i didn't think the sun light, but some artifical light from the illumination system of the shuttle, i guess). Those reflexions are punctual. But beeing very out of focus, BOKEH acts here. (and remember those cameras have catadioptric lens, so that's why the dark center of the bokeh)


And as you see, there are BOKEH WITH NOTCHES, produced BY NASA SHUTTLE CAMERAS from CLOSER and OUT OF FOCUS points of light !


Maybe you want to see them better, here is one frame:




or maybe even better:




More, we see here the cat-eye effect too!


So what we have here?!

A NASA shuttle camera, showing out of focus closer smaller points of light, as BOKEH, with notches and cat-eye effect.



www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Please stop spamming those images - they are not relevant to the discussion.

Thus far you been unable to produce video with bokeh moving in multiple directions, and at varying speeds.

You appear to be stuck in a loop. You consistently resort to spamming debunked arguments. You are going in circles.

*Please go back to the first post wherein you made this argument, and read the posts immediately thereafter.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I'm astounded by how some people posting here can look at something and refuse to see what I see plainly: that multiple objects in and around the tether and satellite change direction, not once but twice or more.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Depth of Field is one of the best minds on ATS IMO. He puts a lot of time and effort into his presentations. The second time I saw the Tether Incident, it seemed clear that the objects weren't intelligent ET. I didn't know what they were, I just felt certain they weren't aliens.

Now Depth of Field, since last year, has provided enough evidence to support the explanation that they are 'bokeh.' He's done it time and again, gotten a lot of grief and animosity too. During the early threads on the STS-75, he got many, many ad homs, character attacks, sarcasm etc. He still came back with more evidence and RARELY fought back with personal attacks. He gets a star from me just about whenever I read a post.

Folk can disagree, but he's put more effort into trying to explain his explanation for the STS-75 than anyone else. The guy's a solid contributor and has the manners and decorum thing perfect


Keep it up DoF, you're a good guy...

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Please stop spamming those images - they are not relevant to the discussion.

You appear to be stuck in a loop. You consistently resort to spamming debunked arguments. You are going in circles.



Oh, but they are very relevant to the discussion...it arguments what you or others don't know, negate and dismiss WITHOUT ARGUMENTS. Boring Bokeh doesn't fit well with your on-the-edge plasma/critter/alien ship theories, no? It could ruin some base of your beliefs?



Originally posted by Exuberant1
Thus far you been unable to produce video with bokeh moving in multiple directions, and at varying speeds.

Have you just a tiny little extrapolating power here in this situation?
So, i showed you some BOKEH, from closer particles, even from the shuttle. In the pin-head experiment, the bokeh is moving, See it?. Should i just placed more pin-heads and moving them differently just to show to you something really obviously? ntz,ntz..


Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Please go back to the first post wherein you made this argument, and read the posts immediately thereafter.


I've gone back.
I saw people applauding my eforts, and some denials without arguments from you and others.

Exuberant1, are you champion of Debate or champion of Negate?
Please demonstrate with your arguments the irrelevancy of my arguments regarding bokeh, and just don't call me a spammer


p.s. Thanks Kandisnky. Make sure to not enter yourself in the spammer category!






[edit on 14/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
But, Armap, you put a 5 meter limit and assume those out of focus closer particles should be "too much out of focus and invisible". Why that?
That 5 metres were a random choice, they could have been 10 or 20. I know that an object closer to the camera will appear out of focus and still highly visible when a camera is focused to infinity, but I don't have any way of know the real limits without knowing the lens' characteristics (and even if I knew I don't know the formulas to calculate those limits, but those are "searchable").


What distance you feel that is from camera to the astronaut, and from camera to the out-of-focus notched-bokeh reflexions in this case?
My opinion in this case cannot be trusted because I know that the distance is from one side of the cargo bay of the shuttle to the other, so even if I try to ignore it my mind will always be influenced by that.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Somehow I missed this one by you.

Yes, the people on the mission with this tether incident clearly state that they did not see anything they did not expect to see. We already have a study that states things are seen in the camera that they can not be explained, so it sounds like it is normal to see these sorts of things, so it is "expected".

Why hasn't more effort been put into explaining what is being seen that can not be explained? Where is the study on that? Why isn't there some direct comment from the eyewitnesses about what everyone is talking about, the big point of these discussions. Why doesn't these eyewitnesses state something like, "the little dots that everyone is so fascinated with around the tether are just ice crystals near the shuttle, or debri floating around the tether"? We all know these things are common, but even eye witnesses state what is seen is MOSTLY these sort of things, and don't address the direct issue. Why? What about the things that are not a part of the MOSTLY.

The question is, "ARE THERE UNEXPLAINED OBJECTS IN THIS FAMOUS TETHER VIDEO?".

The answer you give, "As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates."

What are we supposed to deduce from this answer?

It is kind of like asking the question, "Are there any apples in the bowl"?

And getting an answer of, "Mostly we see oranges and bananas".

I wonder if there was a conversation like this.

Andy "Jim, I don't know what the heck those little dots are around the shuttle."

Jim "You mean you don't see any particles that are floating around the shuttle?"

Andy "Well we always see mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates."

Jim "Good, write me up a statement stating this, so I can post it on this pesky ATS board."

Andy "Why? Why don't you just let em have their fun?"

Jim "They're getting too close to realizing that space is filled with plasma based life forms. We can't let average joes know this, they aren't ready for the truth."

Andy "yeah yeah what ever."



Now isn't that how it really went Jim?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Poet, you are no better at reading minds than at reading NASA reports, apparently. Your preference to live in a world of your own imagination is no problem for me, enjoy yourself.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


The video in this link provided by Easynow proves you wrong.

www.youtube.com...

This video clearly shows that tiny close up objects in the camera's aperture disappear when the camera zooms out and focuses on distant object, and this is clearly shown in this video. While Serda's claims may not be right about what we see in the tether video, he proves your theory wrong in this video.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




What is that you are cawing about? Birds of a feather flock together?

Are there any apples in that bowl?

Just having a little fun.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Well, my video shows that small objects (smaller than the coin) can be visible when out of focus, and my hair doesn't look as bad as Sereda's.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
My two cents on why NASA doesn't talk about these unexplained objects caught in Shuttle videos larger than a cm and further than 10m, is that there is probably a debate at NASA about whether or not to spend the money investigating this phenomenon. One side is unwilling to waste the money and resources to investigate such things. They are very aggressive about this because we are talking about time and money, so they don't like this stuff being discussed. The other side thinks there might be something worth investigating, but they don't want to waste the political capital should these objects turn out to be nothing.

How's that for mind reading Jim?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


But in your video the star keeps blinking in and out of the picture, which doesn't make sense. Also, nothing can be seen in the background on which the camera is supposed to be focusing. Don't mean to be critical, but it looks more like operator error than evidence, as if the camera has autofocus on, and keeps re-focusing on the star.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


The video in this link provided by Easynow proves you wrong.

www.youtube.com...

This video clearly shows that tiny close up objects in the camera's aperture disappear when the camera zooms out and focuses on distant object, and this is clearly shown in this video.


That video of Sereda shows only a half a truth, the one not applicable in NASA videos, and he chosen this half in order to eliminate (for newbies) the closer particle solution.

What is wrong?
Actually, there is something true in his experiment, but he hides the true situaton in NASA videos.

a) The coin experiment: he puts a coin very close to the camera, about 10 inches or so. Yes indeed, a very closer big object (not punctual) and not particularly very bright, will go very fuzzy, transparent, it's out of focus image will be bigger than the entire frame, and therefore he has right here. Remember the settings: big (not punctual) object, not very bright, very close to the camera (10 inches or so). What is wrong here? This is NOT a situation like in NASA STS75 videos. Who said that those particles are big (not punctual) and so close to the camera (10 inches or so), so their out of focus image to fit and exceed the entire frame ? If there are particles near the shuttle in this setting (bigger, very closer, not so bright), they will obey Sereda experiment, and maybe we will not even see them well in video. But who said that ALL the particles near the shuttle are ONLY in that scenario? This is obfuscating from Sereda.

No, those particles in NASA video making distinct BOKEH, are meters or tens of meters away from camera, and are very small, also, very bright on a very dark background. This is entirely another setting, with different results, will see.



b) the dirt particles on the window: now, those particles are small, closer to debris, but again he put particles very close to camera (6 inches). Also, the particles are very dimm, and the background much more bright. Surely when a little out of focus they will dissapear... Exactly this want Sereda to mislead you. ("there is no way" bla bla bla). This is again obfuscating from Sereda.


Now, to make fun from Sereda's obfuscating methods....now he even contradict himself..if you saw his documentary "Evidence - the case for NASA UFO's", he makes an experiment with a camera filmimg some keys placed at 4..5 inches from the camera. He claims that the keys together with the distant background trees, filmed in a shiny bright day, without ZOOM, demonstrates that an ordinary camera is able to see almost everything in focus, so, a more sophisticated camera like NASA can't produce out of focus bokeh.
he really speaks for newbies.... now here in youtube hairy style, he contradicts himself....


Back to reality... to see what Sereda don't say/replicate in his experiments...

In reality, near the shuttle there are many debris from time to time, when activities produce them.
These debris are ussually very small, punctiform in images captured of them if properly focus on them (submilimeter or milimeter in size most of them). These debris are NOT only near the camera (10 inches) or very distant (hundreds of meters or more away). They could be anywhere, including in the meters away inteval from the camera.

Also, if they are lit by the sun, they are very bright against the very dark space background, brightness exagerated when camera's electronic gain is configured to the maximum due to low light filming situation.
About their brightnes, that NASA study (ntrs.nasa.gov...) said this:

The presence of particulates in the Space Station environment could cause a variety of deleterious effects. Their settling on sensitive optical surfaces will cause decreased performance by physically obscuring or scattering emission from bright off-axis sources. Particulates above surfaces in the field-of-view of sensitive instruments will efficiently scatter and emit thermally. These near field sources could dominate remote emission levels. Sunlit particulates appear brighter than stars, entire cities, and even lightning strokes.


So, I want to see Sereda replicating the exactly situation, before saying "truths" with his funny hair...

I tried here to replicate more exactly the actual situation (repeating this is not spam, but what you and others continue to deny):



Originally posted by depthoffield
Then, here, remember my experiment, it is a small particle (1 mm), lit by the sun, placed only 1 meter away from the camera:



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.

So , a 1 mm particle (BRIGHTLY LIT - this is important! and this is the situation with debris in space) close 1 meter to the camera, even when zoomed on infinity, can produce a bokeh disc.



So the setting in my experiment, also on debris in space near the shuttle:
- smaller, almost punctual objects.
- very bright because lit by the sun against a darker background
- closer to the camera, but not exagerattely close (in the meters domain)



result? You see bokeh, and Sereda obfuscates things, fooling the newbies.
So, Poet1b, you, Sereda and others, are WRONG in this respect.



In reality, there can be BOKEH, as long as debris near the shuttle exist, and favorable conditions are accomplished, and this is something reproductible (and happens from time to time, when "donuts" attacks the NASA videos and uninformed watchers). Yours misunderstooding in imaging processes could fool you very bad... don't fool the others too, please...







[edit on 14/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Too bad you only say that now, now I don't have the camera (I had to return it to its owner) and now (that I even have the time) I cannot recreate the video.


The star was rotating to see if it would look like the pulsating effect on the video (that was the main idea of that video, and it does not), that is why it appears and disappears.

And I never use auto-focus.

[edit on 14/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Depthoffield, you are wasting your time and efforts here. You will not change anybody's mind that is already set by Serada's flim-flam. Leave ATS and retain your sanity, I'm seriously thinking of doing so myself. Join a group where proper scientific examination and experimentation is welcomed and not regarded as the work of an unbelieving sabbateur. You simply cannot win, cannot change any minds. Serada has had his day. He'll be forgotten soon enough. I expect he'll go on peddling some mystery or other that only he can explain. He has to make a living I guess and it has the be easier than all that tree planting.

WG3



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 

I do not agree.

First, I don't think that we should think about "changing minds", we should think about showing things to other people and give them the "tools" for their own understanding.

We can never convince someone that does not want to be convinced, but if you can show that there may be other possibilities it may be enough to make some people stop and think a little longer about other possible explanations, even if they are the wrong ones. Remember that if we see that all possibilities are wrong, it means that the real explanation was not yet found.

So, I don't think anybody should leave ATS just because of that.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


And yet the videos you keep constantly re-posting here are even more poorly made. Seriously, not a one you knows how to conduct an experiment.

I did my own testing with my own camera, and I saw just what Sereda produced, and I was further away than 10 inches, basically a meter, with objects of similar brightness. The close up objects disappear, and one of the videos you use shows how this happens, the one with the pin head. If they continued to zoom and focus at a further distance, the pin head would disappear.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hmm, I don't see a star spinning, I see it disappear and re-appear.

I guess I should make my own video and submit it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That is why I said that part of the experiment was a failure.


If you are going to make another experiment, may I suggest that you try to put the object at several distances, while keeping the camera focused on a far away object or in infinity?

I wanted to make an experiment in which I would have several of those 5mm stars at a distance of 1 metre from each other, and seeing where they started to become visible and where they started to show they real shape, but I do not have the resources.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join