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: 65
77
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
it is what you say with the mouth half closed: camera distorsion... which i named it as what it is: bokeh. So, if it is camera distorsion, then we should not look and wonder at this "behavior" as belonging to those "ufo's", because instead is a camera effect.



Nah they are obviously 'critters'... nice try though




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
It's a lot more than 'static' electricity... it's actually enough to KILL an astronaut. It's all about PLASMA not static electricity


Altitude and Latitude Range of Applicability
These guidelines are intended for space systems that spend the majority of their time at altitudes between 200 and 1000 km (usually known as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) applications) and at latitudes between about + and – 50 degrees. That is, space systems that do not (often) encounter the auroral ovals of electron streams, that do not encounter GEO (geosynchronous orbit) charging conditions, and that do not fly through the Van Allen belts. For the extreme radiation protection that is necessary for those orbits, exterior spacecraft charging will likely be a secondary concern.



If you read that again you would realize that it says exterior charging is a *secondary concern* due to the fact the spacecraft already have extremely heavy radiation shielding. Why? The sun. Its radiation is absolutely lethal without the protection of the atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale Why? The sun. Its radiation is absolutely lethal without the protection of the atmosphere.


If that was true the tin foil the astronauts had on the moon would not have protected them



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Nah they are obviously 'critters'... nice try though


I give you a star on this post, so at the moment when i post this, you will have two stars.
The reason for giving you a star, is, because your's very comprehensive, detailed, constructive, useful and concludent post. It really can't be beaten.






[edit on 5/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield It really can't be beaten.


Why thank you...


It was getting to be like a broken record in here. But its funny that NO ONE tackled the camera that actually took the footage of the 'critters' to see if it really could create your imaginary bokehs..

I mean Jim DID link to the info




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
also check this video by david serada......








posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Hey guys as a reminder please keep to the topic at hand and not each other, Any such posts will result in an off Topic,
Thanks,
Asala.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
redacted



[edit on 6-10-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by asala


Sigh....

You used to be able to have a little fun around here...

Ah well...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Well, i found just another direct argument from those famous STS-75 videos, that the discs we see are just a camera effect created by out of focus small objects. Named bokeh. The source objects MUST BE therefore little closer particles swarming nearby, and this is characteristic of particles of debris generated by the shuttle activities itself.

One problem with those discs was their shape, tottally dependent by the position in the camera's frame. Which logically means that the shape is not real, but a camera effect. I posted arguments regarding this, just look for the links in my post on bottom of the previous page (64) for example.

Now i discovered that even the SIZES of the discs are INCONSISTENT with the zoom state, which further demonstrates that the disc shape is not real, but a camera effect.

Here is the rellevant sequence, selected for analysis, with an object shot during the zoom action:





and here is only the zoom action:




What i've done next, is to isolate three frames with the object, but at different zoom settings. Normally, no matter the zoom, the objects in image should maintain their REAL size relative to other fixed marks in the image. So, within those three frames, i tried to measure the size of the disc, using 2 stars in image as a ruler.

These are the two stars selected as reference (fixed measurement unit):




And now, the measurements (you may need to scroll the big images to the right, to see the disc-object also):

First frame, with biggest zoom:



as you see, here, the length between those two stars is just 3 times the size of the disc.



The second frame, with a little smaller zoom:



You see, already, the object shrinks more than it should normally do, so, now, the length between those two stars is about 3.5 times the size of the disc!!


And the third frame, with the zoom yet smaller:



Now, the objects shrinks more, again more than it should normally do, so, now, the length between those two stars is about 4 times the size of the disc!!


And, next, those three frames overlayed and scaled together, in order to eliminate the zoom factor, to see how the object is shrinking (change it's size during the zoom operation):




Normally, if the size of the disc was a real property of the objects, it should maintain that 3 times ratio relative to that two-stars-distance, no matter the zoom, this is how zoom works.

But, we have a size variation not linear to zoom, but shrinking faster.
Why? Because the disc shape (and size) is not a REAL property of the object, but a camera effect, bokeh here. Bokeh size depend on zoom state, but also is a function of the depth of field of the lens..and depth of field is variable together with the aperture of the lens, and the focal/distance ratio.... if you want the technical explanation.

So, because the discs is in reality bokeh, it respects its characteristics.
And, because is bokeh, then it means the inevitable...those objects appearing as discs, are small and close to the lens, in order to produce bokeh in a lens focused on infinite. So, NO WAY that those discs are near the 100 miles distant tether. NO WAY.

So, the objects are small and close... just like common and mundane debris it is...
or maybe those discs are tiny alien ships, or tiny critters, like flies around the horse
..maybe cute, pretty ones... ..and easy to catch beeing closer.




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Excellent analysis Depthoffield.

I think you have already shown that it's bokeh before but this should be even more convincing. I hope it convinces some of the "skeptics" and by that I mean the people who are skeptical about it being bokeh!


Star for your post!

Also I added you to my friends list. We need good solid analysis like you provide on ATS, your work is always excellent.


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield It really can't be beaten.


Why thank you...


It was getting to be like a broken record in here. But its funny that NO ONE tackled the camera that actually took the footage of the 'critters' to see if it really could create your imaginary bokehs..

I mean Jim DID link to the info



Get your sarcasm detector fixed.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
check out this new video that LunaCognita has made about the tether incident. this new analysis shows the objects are clearly changing direction. is there an invisible force present causing debri particles to act like this or are they controlled objects ?



make sure to read what is in the more info section on the youtube page under LunaCognita's name...

www.youtube.com...


I have built a series of flightpath tracking animations that were constructed from "stable sequences" of the original raw STS75 tether footage. For the purposes of this presentation, the term "stable sequence" refers to a segment of footage in which the camera platform remains perfectly stable - with no movement, shaking, or zoom interference that would serve to compromise the accuracy of the object flightpath tracks.



As you will see, the flightpath tracking animations reveal that many objects experience some very impressive delta-v changes, with some objects floating across the FOV in "delicate arc" trajectories, and others exhibiting far more dramatic changes in flightpath that in some cases appears to result in abrupt 180-degree shifts in the velocity vector. These flightpath deviations must be due to either some external force acting upon the object (push/pull), or alternatively, we must also consider that there could be an internal force or thrust being emitted from the object itself that accounts for the changes in trajectory and velocity observed (the second option would of course denote some level of intelligent control being involved). You will also witness some objects that appear to materialize and de-materialize directly into or out of the scene



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



can you explain why the "stars" disappear when the camera zooms back in and the fact that there are other objects which are not stars disappear as well ?

to me that might be proof that not all the objects are close to the camera ?







and how do you know those dots are stars ? have you matched them up with some known pattern or are you just guessing ?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I can assure everyone that the 'tether incident' video was completely studied in private from 1996 to 2000 by scientists, NASA HQ ,the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), astrophysicists & private researchers around the world, before I released it to the public on March 11, 2000 via video streaming on the internet (not a common practice back then!) The UFOs are really "there" & this STS-75 'tether breaks' video is now 'off limits' for NASA or its employees & contractors to discuss in public... other than have their go-to skeptics 'fuzzify' the NASA evidence...

At first it was all so civilized & friendly. NASA felt no need to say anything about the STS-75 video from '96-2000 because the video never went public. Privately however...I had sent NASA HQ the video in 1996 & got a watermarked letter via snail mail thanking me! NASA confirmed that they had viewed the video, were very concerned about what was seen...& any space objects seen on missions, they generalize as "debris"...& thus study as a danger to shuttle missions... (I was directed to an ongoing study on the dangers of debris in the hostile vacuum that is space.)

So NASA HO knew I had the STS-75 tether video in 1996!... they watched it. Soon my space agency contacts discussed only the success of the mission(???) & would not address the last minute switch-out to the used STS-46 "clunker" tether, nor the "embargo" on all mission video & other data pertaining to the shuttle breaking & loss of a 100 million dollar satellite!...So I went public in 2000...to the harmony of 'keep it to ourselves' by so many, (including David Sereda)...all screaming at me for not maximizing its potential for $$$!..... No big deal, as the personal attacks were still not addressing the video evidence.

This threads video analysis is important, new, & the posts are also full of ideas & that's the fun of this thread...& being here at ATS...

Continuing... MUFON told me to send all my video on to them for analysis, as I was their B.C. CANADA director at the time, & those were "orders"! I refused & quit MUFON. (probably why they have ignored this amazing footage & the incident in general. Just check out all the journals from 2000 to 2009, archived for free pdf downloads by MUFON on line. Only a token Sereda bit of storytelling.

If this video is a 'zero importance issue', why the endless debunking attempts, personal attacks & anger at any suggestion that NASA release all the embargoed video? And why does any STS-75 video analysis at ATS always attract 'Superstar' skeptic Jim Oberg...like this post probably will?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think you have already shown that it's bokeh before but this should be even more convincing. I hope it convinces some of the "skeptics" and by that I mean the people who are skeptical about it being bokeh!



Thank you for your appraisal. I think some of those which reject the "bokeh" explanation, and i reffer to only those which just in silent read this topic, may indeed be more convinced about "bokeh" solution. But i have my doubts that some of those which are "skeptics" about bokeh, and post here, will ever accept the "bokeh" explanation, simple because their ego and tons of their writings (here or there) simply always dismissed the solution. Some of their hypothesys rely on this STS-75 UFO mistery. They have something to lose when accepting the mundane explanation. Some credibility. So, i doubt they will ever will accept the idea, instead will fight to obfuscate it.


============


reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Maybe you missed this:


Originally posted by depthoffield
Studying more those strange "maneuveurs", i propose one animation taken from one stable sequence of LunarCognita.


I've marked on the sequence, 5 moments in time when there are discernable those misterious maneuvers.
These moments, called by me "changes", are marked by me with colors and numbers, in order:

CHANGE1 red
CHANGE2 green
CHANGE3 blue
[color=Gray]CHANGE4 gray
CHANGE5 yellow


Also, when one namely change appears, i'll marked on the frame the position of all objects of which i can detect some changes in motion, using the corresponding colour of that namely change.

Here is the animation:





What we see here?

That it happens that all the "misterious" maneuvers of the objects are taking place in the same time, the moment of the "change"!
More, we can see that different objects with the same speed and appearance, appear to do exactly the same kind of motion/speed change (maneuver), for example those 3 bright objects in the bottom left corner.


What does this means?

It means two posibilities:

a) the objects make real maneuvers, in sincron, so they show inteligence and connections between them

b) the maneuvers of the objects are not real, but the camera together with the shuttle itself make maneuvers, because of the Reaction control system of the shuttle in action (en.wikipedia.org...), when finely and with precission make small adjustements in the shuttle attitude or motion vector as part of it's flight in orbit.

If we look with attention, we can see clearly that even the stars themselves, those apparently imobile bright or dimmer points of light, appear to do some kind of small maneuveurs, exactly at the precise moments ("changes") marked by me!

This really rules out the "inteligence" factor needed to explain the "misterious maneuvers of the objects!

And, you know, debris in space can appear to (or really) have curved trajectories!
one example:



I hope i answered a bit to OP questions regarding movements of the sts-75 objects, particles of debris


The above quote was taken right from this thread ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



I think some of those which reject the "bokeh" explanation, and i reffer to only those which just in silent read this topic, may indeed be more convinced about "bokeh" solution. But i have my doubts that some of those which are "skeptics" about bokeh, and post here, will ever accept the "bokeh" explanation, simple because their ego and tons of their writings (here or there) simply always dismissed the solution.


i'm not someone who denies the possibility that the shape of some of the objects might be explained with the bokeh theory but why do you continuously reject and deny the fact that not all of the objects have a bokeh shape and are NOT close to the camera ?

maybe your ego has impaired your critical thinking skills ?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join