New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

The 2009 revised edition of "The Cosmic Pulse Of Life"...by Trevor James Constable has a new analysis of the STS-75 footage as well. He even discusses mr. Zs "critters"
I recommend this analysis from one of the worlds best UFO researchers, now in his 80s. I had the honor of many late night phone calls from him for his "tether breaks" research.

One of the toppermost (retired) "spooks" in the U.S. also called many nights, confirming & trading info on this mission & he said that he (also in his 80s) NEVER believed the government would allow such evidence to go public in his life time. The nicest part was he named 3 of the UFOs that he had singled out as "genuine" & named 2 "of the UFOs" after his daughters...(& one after me ...very grandfatherly!). He discussed UFO non disclosure & how he was involved all his career in the military with confiscating Gun camera video of UFOs from military aircraft, & said that he was fully aware of what was a UFO because he had to watch them all!

All I am trying to say is there is a 2nd. narrative going on & it is yet to surface, because of some strange type of "fear factor" going on with scientists & Space Agency personal I know... thus I'm in the confusing position of knowing both narratives, but I am still dividing things up as to what I can reveal. I can't tell you what I know, yet...but I have not merely been talking about things I think I know...the debunkers are all guessing & playing with skeptical chemistry sets which do not contain any really important chemicals.

white dot ufo ?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 20-10-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
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 ?

yes, i can explain why the stars "dissapear"

If you ever film with a camera at night, the sky with stars...with and without zoom..
you will see the same phenomenon. Try it! (hint - use manual focus to infinite, because automatic focus can't function properly in no light)
Do you know why?
Simply because when zoomed, you have different focal lengths. (F)
No zoom = short focal lenghth
Full zoom = long focal length.

And the aperture, which is

A = F/D , and ussually it is constant or pretty constant during the zoom operation.

so aperture is the focal lenghth divided by the optical diameter of the lens D .

It means D = F / A
When zoomed, F is big, so, in order to maintain the relation, the D also becames big.

And, the maximum senzitivity at light is when D is greater, because there is greater surface for collecting light. That's why greater the lens of the binocular/telescope, greater the light senzitivity.
If i remember, naked eye could see faint stars until to 6 magnitude (in not polluted city skies). But a binocular could go to 8..9 magnitude, simply because it's lens is great than the eye-pupil.

Technical stuff.


You talk here about "not so close objects". But the ones which appear as notched discs when zoomed, are CLOSE! Even those which illusory appear to go behind the tether (tell this to Sereda, who speaks about "morons" ). The discs are one of the MAIN ALLEGED MISTERY from this STS-75 video. But the discs are bokeh from closer smaller particles.

reply to post by depthoffield

the ones which appear as notched discs when zoomed, are CLOSE!

i never said they weren't , i simply said the bokeh explanation does not prove that ALL THE OBJECTS are close to the camera ... in fact i think that theory might prove some objects are not close to the camera.

thanks

reply to post by depthoffield

No zoom = short focal lenghth

so if ALL the objects are close to the camera as you claim then why don't they ALL show up when the focal length is "short" ?

maybe because not all of them are close to the camera

Originally posted by depthoffield


You are assuming wrong. No big attention needed, everybody can see that the bright moving objects are also filling the entire frame even when the camera is NOT ZOOMED. Look for one example, in STS75 videos there are many times when camera is not-zoomed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9355cacaf7c.jpg[/atsimg]

And when camera is not zoomed, it has an wide angle. Not small as you may want people to comprehend.

Let's make an estimate, taking tether as a ruler:

Tether has about 20 km. The distance from the shuttle to the tether is about 100 km.
But the tether in this un-zoomed image have just a little less than a third of the entire frame's height, let's say exactly one third for the sake of calculations.
It means the entire height of the frame is able to see 3 x 20 = 60 km at the distance (100km) where the tether is.
Therefore, basic geometrics, we could calculate the angle:

tan (angle) = 30/100
it results the angle:

Vertical Angle = 33 degree.
This value so represents the vertical angle of the lens when un-zoomed.

The horizontal angle it is bigger, let's assume a 4:3 aspect ratio of the frame, therefore

Horizontal angle = 44 degree

if you imagine the full circle 360 degree, a panorama if you wish, where camera could look if desired (ignoring the real posibilites in that circumstance), then NASA camera sees about 1 / 8 from a full panorama. Do you label this as "tiny"?


This values are pretty nominal for a normal angle (not-zoomed) lens, they represents a wide angle, just like your own photocamera or videocamera is able to have when UNZOOMED. Who says about "tiny"?

So, Poet1b, don't assume things about "tiny areas".

More, and this you ignore (why?), so, who is telling that those particles of debris are just in front of the camera? Have you any over video from STS75 looking to other areas in the same time, and no debris recorded to be sure when making this claim? Damn debris, are going just and only in one particular camera's angle of view...

It is like somebody film the sky with stars, no matter zoom or un-zoom, seeing and recording some stars in the frame, and then somebody else which later see the movie, wondering "why those tiny bright dots are only in the frame, the chances of this happening are so extremely unlikely to be .." This assuming of yours is hilarious when judgeing in it's full naked objectivity.

The shuttle could be very well surrounded by the cloud of debris generated by itself, so they are almost everywhere, not only in your "tiny area where lens it is seeing the very distant tether".

what you say? "unlikely chances"? maybe this is your biased wish, but the mundane reality, you know, the very probable one, don't care about everybody's wishes.





[edit on 1/10/09 by depthoffield]

this is long and interesting thread.

oberg makes plenty of unscourced ascertions on the important issues and compensates with links for secondary distraction issues.

also links provided to him from nasa as direct confirmation of a claim have a life span of 6 hours or less as i know thru reading the thread from the first posting live as its progressed.

the reason i quote depthoffield is his post is just one of many trying to obscure and detract from the main topic.

anyone who has been reading the thread and also done their own research knows conclusively that ice crystals in the sunlight are a joke of an explanation.

ice crystals sublimate within seconds in direct sunlight as proven without a shred of doubt in nasas own documents provided and quoted by zorgon.

those same documents about the early shuttle experiments and the need for a debri free view also explained the lifespan of closeup shuttle debris which was minutes and minutes only until they were trailing the shuttle and getting left behind.

also mr oberg has retracted many many months ago his assertions on the ice crystal theory when he had his bum soundly slapped live on air debating sereda who basically made him look extremely foolish on a live show that the NSA blocked the last 20 minutes of broadcast .. a never achieved situation before on american tv such was their horror at seredas ideology and demonstrated arguement.

they blocked the channel and their official explanation was they did it on the grounds of national security ..

jim oberg once dropping his ice crystal theory then had to find another quasi legitimate theory hence the terminal line theory he has stuck with and was meritous in other siyuations that i researched myself .. and anything else is just smoke and mirrors on his part the NSA aswell as NASA DONT want us to know its that simple.

theres so many trying to take this thread around in circles you have firstly to recognise who and then eliminate their #e .. what you have left is intriguing.

however i dont have to reach a decision on whether we are looking at technology or not in the stt75 footage as i know i am looking at technology at work here www.youtube.com... and no-one will ever tell me different .. whether its human tech or not is another ballgame.



jim is quite the cowboy the way he has been jumping from horse to horse on this thread .. anyone who posts a credible rebuttal of the ufo theory and jims right there riding that horse awhile.

has a very versitile arguement our jim.








looking forward to more footage martin.

and where will we find it.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by manxman2


Yeah, you debunk a debunker's claim, and then they come back and repost it as if the concept hasn't already been proven false.

Here is the original footage.

www.youtube.com...#

The shuttle has came out of the shadow of Earth, and is looking back into the shadow for the tether to become visible. For the first 1:42 of the video the camera is looking off into space, and there are no particles floating around in front of the camera lens. Then, they slightly adjust the angle where the camera is pointing so that we now have the tether on the screen, and immediately see all the UFOs floating around the tether.

Now it is too late in the mission for so many particles to have come up out of the cracks, so it would have to be from some effluent dump or thruster firing. The thing is, if they just performed one of these acts just as the tether comes into the picture, the particles would have been moving very fast, and there would be far more of them, as we see in the video footage of these two types of emissions of particles. So it can't be from an immediate firing. If it had came from a such an emission some time earlier so that these kinds of particles would floating just outside of the shuttle as is proposed by all the debunkers, then we would have been seeing them from the very beginning of the video when it is just staring off into space, waiting for the tether to come into view.

All camera lens explanations can not change this basic evidence.

ive watched the footage more times than i can remember over the years.

and no matter what theory one has its got to apply to this aswell
www.youtube.com...

because they are the same as some of the objects in the tether footage.
theres no escaping that fact and no ice crystal / space debris / lens flare/trick terminal sunline can come in to earths orbit decend into an electrical storm whilst at the same time another vehicle ascends the same storm and travels on out of earths orbit.

as nick pope says about the footage on the youtube clip i have put up quite an outstanding bit of footage .. amen to that .. its all the proof i need to show me theres alternate technology up there .. but theres plenty more if you know how to look isnt there zorgon baby.





[edit on 20-10-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by manxman2


The one (I only remember seeing one) that descends to the storm does not looks like the things on the tether video or the other things in the same video, it looks different and I don't think they are the same type of object.

i do armap.

but regardless of our differing opinion you do acknowledge it comes to a halt and then evenly decends into the storm.
you only have to watch abit thurther to see the other leave they are both in view at the same time.

tell me do you really believe an object can just leave earths gravity at will like that without being internally powered. .. as i dont.

now i have no problem in seeing the fact that those 2 craft were overly interested in that electrical activity i also have no doubt the same type of intelligence in control of them craft would be equally as interested in that tether.

and regardless of the bokeh effect other non bokeh objects were on a trajectory behind that tether.

Originally posted by manxman2
but regardless of our differing opinion you do acknowledge it comes to a halt and then evenly decends into the storm.
you only have to watch abit thurther to see the other leave they are both in view at the same time.

Yes, I said it several times in other threads, and I think I said at least once in this thread.

tell me do you really believe an object can just leave earths gravity at will like that without being internally powered. .. as i dont.

What do you mean by that? I don't see any of those objects leaving Earth's gravity, could you please tell me at what time does that happen in that video?

now i have no problem in seeing the fact that those 2 craft were overly interested in that electrical activity i also have no doubt the same type of intelligence in control of them craft would be equally as interested in that tether.

I don't have any problem with any craft being interested in the tether, I just don't see it that way.

and regardless of the bokeh effect other non bokeh objects were on a trajectory behind that tether.

Not necessarily, with that type of image it's not possible to know if the objects were in front or behind the tether because the sensor was overloaded.

but regardless of our differing opinion you do acknowledge it comes to a halt and then evenly decends into the storm.
you only have to watch abit thurther to see the other leave they are both in view at the same time.

Yes, I said it several times in other threads, and I think I said at least once in this thread.

well i havent read those other threads so what do you think is going on in that clip i put up.

tell me do you really believe an object can just leave earths gravity at will like that without being internally powered. .. as i dont.

What do you mean by that? I don't see any of those objects leaving Earth's gravity, could you please tell me at what time does that happen in that video?

3.26 rises and vacates

now i have no problem in seeing the fact that those 2 craft were overly interested in that electrical activity i also have no doubt the same type of intelligence in control of them craft would be equally as interested in that tether.

I don't have any problem with any craft being interested in the tether, I just don't see it that way.


and regardless of the bokeh effect other non bokeh objects were on a trajectory behind that tether.

Not necessarily, with that type of image it's not possible to know if the objects were in front or behind the tether because the sensor was overloaded.

so lets see because you THINK the censor was overloaded its not possible to believe your eyes .. fair enough .. but for me there are objects moving behind the tether without the possible bokeh effect with the large pulsing light sources..
and it will take abit more than maybe they were not behind the tether because maybe the camera lense may be at fault as well as causing the bokeh effect.

ive yet to see anyone anywhere have a theory on what else was happening with those 2 objects in that clip i put up.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by manxman2




Have a look at this a similar effect to the video but photographic

cross hair knockout.

Look at this from an external site

www.iangoddard.com...

If you knew anything about photography you would know about this effect
a lot of keen photographers on here!

The reason the cross hair is not visible is because the white area overloads the sensor so the black does not show.
So all the haox IDIOTS some supposed to be well educated said the cross hairs must have been behind the equipment or painted on
The problem is you ignore the simple solution because its boring you would prefer UFO'S as we have proved its likely to be the photo/video effect its up to you to have CONCLUSIVE proof its not!
We can PROVE THE VIDEO/PHOTO EFFECT WITH EVIDENCE, YOU cant PROVE the UFO!

you personally have proven nothing in this thread .. however your bolded underlined WE CAN PROVE etc
just shows me you are part of an organised group or have multi I.D.s as you have only made 7 or 8 postings to this thread in the I.D. i am replying to.

and they have all been unsubstantiated claims wrapped in an aggressive mocking pose.
this example of yours is just futile. .. a spec of paint on glass against a daylight sky .. newsflash the objects whatever they maybe are in space and moving .. not to mention a camera of a different spec and manufacturer. pure distraction tactic.
tinypic.com...

quote
If you knew anything about photography you would know about this effect
a lot of keen photographers on here!
end quote

i know that i dont need to know zip about cameras and photography when the subject matter of your claim was ice crystals reflecting sun light out of focus .. you cannot film that which was impossible to film.
ice crystals sublimate when subjected to direct sunlight in a heartbeat.
all the nasa data on ice crystals has already been posted and ignored by you so i am not going to trawl thru all the posts again on your behalf just to show you what you have already alledgedly read.

i am not interested in moon shots and your attempts at deflection and or distraction.


quote.
Plasma life forms I rather believe the ufo theory (which I DONT!) ice and debris just deal with it!.
end quote.

the quote of yours above shows your level of knowledge and or the amount of research you are prepared to do before emptying your bowels all over a thread .. the slightest bit of research thru nasa documentation would of shown you the life span of ice particles in space when in direct sunlight.

i also have no need to prove anything to myself or you.
you see 30 years of research had given me all the proof i needed even without any shuttle footage.

so tell me are these camera annomolies.

www.youtube.com...

watch it all before commenting please.


you will avoid these examples just like any other debunker ive ever met because they are what they are.















[edit on 21-10-2009 by manxman2]

If you mean "prove" these are ET...no, but prove they are identified you have not. I think they have been "proved" as truly UNIDENTIFIED!

... we have this STS-75 space 'mystery' & NASA won't acknowledge or research it, always dismissing these objects (UFOs) as not of concern to the space shuttle nor even astronauts safety... Yet they go bananas when they do "officially" ID "debris",...recently sending all space station personal scrambling to the ISS escape Soyez craft with "film at 11" for the over air mainstream "news'!

Behavioral analysis of the NASA personal when "unofficial" & non declared 'debris' is all around them is weird silence...dumb comments...non concern of these UFOs as maybe even ice, micrometeorites, paint , foam, satellites, small comets, ..you name it...

... why say it is "just" harmless "debris"? (There is no such thing as harmless space debris)... in public, NASA likes to go on & on about the "hostile" & dangerous vacuum of space...yet we see & hear ZERO evidence of this stated concern on their own "debis/UFO" filled videos, like the STS-75!

So they must know "enough" about these UFOs to let this following type of conversation take place...the 1st astronaut says "There's an (unknown) object right in front of you ... 2nd astronaut reply:"I don't know what you are talking about"...then 1st astronaut says "nevermind"? ...& further comments "don't worry about it"...HELLO....don't worry about a stated concern by a spacewalker about an Unknown object! Any object in space "right in front of you", especially during a spacewalk, is of major concern & it is very dangerous ignoring it...no matter what it. is.

Originally posted by manxman2
well i havent read those other threads so what do you think is going on in that clip i put up.

I think that we see maybe three different types of objects:
1. small objects relatively near the camera
2. one unidentified object that goes straight down to the atmosphere and that looks unable to get closer to the thunderstorm but it's attracted by the storm
3. fast objects that may be (I don't know if they are visible in those conditions) meteors

3.26 rises and vacates

I don't see anything "rising", could you post a screen-shot?

so lets see because you THINK the censor was overloaded its not possible to believe your eyes ..

It's never possible to completely believe our eyes, mostly when looking at a 3D scene reduced to a 2D environment and without any depth deferences, like in this case.

fair enough .. but for me there are objects moving behind the tether without the possible bokeh effect with the large pulsing light sources..

And in what do you base your opinion that they are behind the tether and not affected by bokeh?

and it will take abit more than maybe they were not behind the tether because maybe the camera lense may be at fault as well as causing the bokeh effect.

"Maybes" is the only thing I can realistically use in this case, because I don't have any definite information about those things and I cannot be sure of anything.

ive yet to see anyone anywhere have a theory on what else was happening with those 2 objects in that clip i put up.

Then I suggest you start looking, that video has been discussed several times on ATS and I personally think that it's the closest thing to a hypothetical plasma creature that I have seen.

i have not mentioned any objects except the 2 main ones connected with the storm they are the only light sources i am refering to so where the 3 you refer to are i dont know nor do i want to dilute this exchange with that aside.

theres only one bit of your last post armap that interests me .. you dont see the second object rise out of the atmosphere and leave.

i think your going to claim it just materialised as it was bathed in sunlight as somehow up until then it was in shadow.

i dont need to give you a screen shot stop the vid at 3.26. thats all the screen shot you need.
first object i mention enters bottom right hand corner at 2.24
www.youtube.com...

anything else ive seen asked and answered a dozen times or more on this thread.

and lets leave maybe out of our dialog aswell as sentences that assert as fact things that are just a maybe as you mistakenly did with the lense quote.

what definately happened was a bright object travels into the picture and not the shuttle traveling over a stationary object giving the impression of movement .. that object then slows to a stop and holds its position before decending into the upper reaches of the storm .. then at 3.26 we clearly see another object rise out of the top of the storm and assume a course to take it out off the top of the frame.

thats what anyone looking at that footage sees .. they are organisms or craft under their own power thats indisputable to me
and they play with our gravity as if its non existant.

i speculate from here on.

and i think it could well be human technology powering up as any extraterrestrial activity .. and even if it was proven et activity i doubt they were manned so to speak.

weve been sending prode tech into space for only a few decades .. others i feel have been doing it for millenia.

i cannot get my head around plasma life using the oceans of space like fish in our oceans tho.

feel free to point out the hypocrisy in my assuming it is technology being used after requesting you to stick to fact and not assumption.

but i lay my thoughts out on the subject matter in those paragraphs only.















[edit on 21-10-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by manxman2


Who says they are all ice crystals could be dust ,flecks of paint, specs of shuttle tile etc they will all reflect light!

Just because you decide to ignore actual facts when presented to to you shows how closed you are to your UFO or plasma creatures others claim.

The reason it looks as if it crosses behind the tether is the exact same reason that black cross hair seems to disappear if you cant GRASP that well what can I say.

The funny thing is if these objects are as big as you claim as the tether was 100km approx from the camera some of your objects would have to be kilometers across how come we dont have a picture of one taken from the earth!!!!! surley with the hundreds of them floating about HOW come NO amature astronomer has posted a pic of one FUNNY is it not!

Well...How come no one but the Shoemaker & Levy families saw the comet coming?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Because this far into the mission, almost all of the flecks of paint, specs of shuttle tile etc have already been pulled away from the shuttle, and only one or two should be seen occasionally, not the large numbers we see in this video.

There is a NASA study on this thread that clearly states this, and I made this point a few posts above. How is it that de-bunkers continuously ignore previously presented evidence, so they we have to constantly keep pointing it out.

Also, yor lens anomaly was of a black cross hair, or narrow black line, behind a bright white figure, while the tether video is of white dots behind a white tether, which is a very different situation, and no pictures have yet been shown that duplicate this phenomenon.