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: 69
77
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Yeah and I want to be able to change water into beer.


Haah, me too! Hey! That was tricky! Beer is made from mostly water already!



Have you researched any skeptical sites that offer explanations for the optical effect? Or googled 'STS-75' and my name, for example?

Yepp i have done that.....
What are you suggesting here, i am not sceptical?


I'm very well aware that the optical effects could be the explanation for this.
But....
When zoomed in on the tether and you see these little white dots transform into... A mile wide "something" as the believers think.
They get this funny "hollow" centre.
The same thing happens with the tether cable. It gets this "hollowness".
The difference is, the tether is allot longer than, what i believe it to be, the debris that is floating with the the tether.
But....

When not zoomed in on, the tether look just like any ordinary white line and the dots, well they just look like dots.

But what if, the tether would have been 2.54cm's x 2.54cms instead, and still be having that radiant glow it had, and perhaps, spinning slowly on it's own axis (sp?).
What would happen when zoomed in on?
Would it look, perhaps, a bit similar to the white dots?



Or do you demand on one-on-one tutorial?

No need to be obnoxious...
I never demand, i ask nicely.




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
What are you suggesting here, i am not sceptical?


What Jim Oberg's post suggests to me is that he may have already written something answering your question which you might be able to find in a Google search, he even gave you the search terms.

So maybe he was suggesting that if you search, you may find what you are searching for. That was the whole point of his post and it seems to have escaped you, or at least you didn't say you ran that search which he suggested.


Originally posted by easynow
and then i said this...


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" ?


www.abovetopsecret.com...
never got an answer on that one


"Close" is a relative term which I interpret to mean less distant than the tether. However "close" should not infer that all the objects are exactly the same distance away from the camera, they aren't, they are at varying distances, that's why some appear and others disappear at different focal lengths during the zoom.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



So maybe he was suggesting that if you search, you may find what you are searching for. That was the whole point of his post and it seems to have escaped you, or at least you didn't say you ran that search which he suggested.


First, that questions was directed to another user, but i dont mind

And I replied with:


I'm very well aware that the optical effects could be the explanation for this.
But....
When zoomed in on the tether and you see these little white dots transform into... A mile wide "something" as the believers think.
They get this funny "hollow" centre.
The same thing happens with the tether cable. It gets this "hollowness".
The difference is, the tether is allot longer than, what i believe to be, the debris that is floating with the the tether.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Let me get this straight, you claim the thickness of the tether is due to the "charge built up, reflected sunlight and the over exposure"?

Seriously, this can cause a few strands of wire to look like they are a kilometer thick?

Ah, but there is no way the little white dots floating around the tether can be equally distorted?



Sure, right, I buy that, it will go nice with my new bridge.

Your three youtube links do a great job of showing that objects that are a great distance away can look like what we are looking at in the tether video, so your own links prove you wrong.

The fact that the width of the tether is so out of proportion with its length, as Balez has nicely pointed out, is another major point that the people with this theory that the objects are all floating outside of the shuttle are completely wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The fact that the width of the tether is so out of proportion with its length, as Balez has nicely pointed out, is another major point that the people with this theory that the objects are all floating outside of the shuttle are completely wrong.


Poet, the way you express yourself, it seems that you consider the strongest argument is your own personal certainty in being right. You 'argue from intellectual incapacity' that things that YOU personally can't believe therefore can't be true.

The thickness of the tether image is clearly an artifact of the optics, since in various zoom settings, the length changes, but the thickness never does. As seen by the crew, and by human witnesses on the ground, there never was any visually resolvable thickness to the tether -- it was physically similar to a telephone cord thickness, but white, and in full sunlight it was very bright.

That brightness caused pixels on the monitor to leak to neighboring pixels -- an effect seen for all high-contrast bright targets but not usually noticeable because the targets were never before so physically thin.

It's also been pointed out that a gray line was seen down the center of the 'fat tether' image. This is quite true. The camera elements would 'overbright protect' and reduce the brightness pixel by pixel if the light was too strong. Again, this was seen in typical other bright targets such as passing night-lit cities, or lightning-lit cloud masses.

The existence of this safety-dimming feature is at the heart of the illusion of white dots passing BEHIND the tether. As they cross the image of the tether, the gray center stripe remains gray -- the white dots 'disappear'.

The instinctive interpretation is that they are being occulted by a thick object (the phantom 'fat tether'). They really do look like they are passing behind the tether.

But that's optically impossible, since a visible object that is 60 to 100 miles away or more -- farther than the tether -- isn't going to be measurable dimmed by passing a telephone-cord-thick wire in front of it. There just ISN'T any physical structure to the thin tether that would cause the behind-passing supposedly-distant object to dim in the slightest.

The objects -- arguably small shuttle-generated debris from a known scheduled water dump event prior to the observing sequence -- are as bright as ever as they cross over the tether in the far background. But those particular pixels are already over the high-limit brightness that triggers safety dimming of those pixels, entirely due to the tether's brightness. The added brightness from the passing particles doesn't make the pixel any whiter -- it stays gray.

That makes two arguments in favor of the 'camera artifact' explanation for the admittedly superficially persuasive illusion of big objects passing behind the distant tether.







[edit on 26-10-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



debris from a known scheduled water dump



can you post that info on this "scheduled" dump or do we just take your word on it ?






posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



debris from a known scheduled water dump


can you post that info on this "scheduled" dump or do we just take your word on it ?


Yes, I can. The question is, why make me the gatekeeper? Why make me your excuse for not finding out these kinds of things yourself before jumping to your mind-stroking conclusions? Or for you making excuses for all the previous proclaimers on this event neglecting to do the simplest of background research on context? What's your excuse for their failure?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



debris from a known scheduled water dump



can you post that info on this "scheduled" dump or do we just take your word on it ?





Jim is breaking his reporters code. ..RE: water dump, he is telling you what he thinks he knows & not what he knows. Jim is always going on & on about "detail"...so when was this dump??? I have the whole mission & I know this water dump is another guess...from the superstar skeptic who did not even know that a used, "clunker" tether was substituted for the new one on the STS-75... until I argued it this year on ATS...& posted the proof on You Tube! Jim said I was "delusional", & my 'used tether' claim was 'typical' of my lack of facts ..etc... Now he is even justifying the tether switch!

So take his premise filled 'camera theory' as a mere guess...dressed up to look like a serious explanation. I bet Jim doesn't even own a video camera??



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Yes, I can. The question is, why make me the gatekeeper? Why make me your excuse for not finding out these kinds of things yourself before jumping to your mind-stroking conclusions? Or for you making excuses for all the previous proclaimers on this event neglecting to do the simplest of background research on context? What's your excuse for their failure?



so let me get this straight..

You make a claim and don't post any proof to back up that claim and then you spin it so it's my fault ?

get real


let me have a try at this...lol


there was no scheduled water dump just prior to the video in question



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Are you blind?

Large parts of the whole video are white washed. The lower right hand corners is completely white washed for a considerable part of the video. The distortion goes way beyond the tether.

AND, as I have pointed out time and time again, there are no particles in the video when the camera moves to the tether, then the white dots appear.

If is was a water dump, we should have been seeing particles the whole time, from the beginning of the video.

Criminy.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Lol, i see that some water dump, even frozen, appear to really burn some people here, which react against it with so great vehemence.


reply to easynow


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


Those dots are stars. I've matched them with a star chart. I know their names. I know now where (inside what constellation) is the tether during the STS-75 videos discussed here. But it is hard to finish the materials..yet.
So, bokeh is there in that demonstration, with that notched disc. And that notched disc is a representative one... Sereda, Zorgon, and many others relyed on that notched disc....which is simply fateful ... just bokeh from some close, small, out of focus particle.

Back to silence momentary.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I have the whole mission & I know this water dump is another guess...
Maybe you can clear a doubt I have.

When was this scene filmed? As far as I remember they had three opportunities to see (and film) the tether, but only two were successful, which of those is this one, the first or the last? And at what time did it occurred?

Thanks in advance.

PS: another question, more a request than a question: could you please post a better version of the whole video to a site that does not recompress and converts it? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



hard to finish the materials..yet.


understandable and i never claimed that you couldn't identify the dots as stars. i only was questioning how you can do it.

thanks in advance for not making me prove something you claimed like Jim Oberg wants. that's how it should work. if you make a factual claim , be prepared to back up that claim with some evidence and don't whine because others won't do it for you.

:shk:



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
nope, i didn't make extraordinary claims.
Others, pushing the "mistery" in every way (including denying basic facts), they are those who make extraordinary claims..but, in reality they are ignorants in some aspects, and, therefore, result in our duty, the "debunkers" to deny their ignorance. Bokeh here. Or how water dump could be the source for what we see.
It looks ussually that the hard work in clarifying a phenomenon fall into the burden of skeptics, or, realistic people i would say.

[edit on 26/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



nope, i didn't make extraordinary claims.


i never said it was an extraordinary claim. once again , i only questioned how you would prove it.




therefore, result in our duty, the "debunkers" to deny their ignorance.


so you admit your a debunker ?


how come you never answered my question:

have you ever seen a UFO ?




Bokeh here. Or how water dump could be the source for what we see.


so do you agree the water dump is the explanation or no ?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I am flattered that David Wilcock wrote in Chapter 7 of "the Science of Oneness" about his STS-75 theory... another interesting 'direction' of study... thus I present it as part of this new analysis of the STS-75 Tether Incident...

The highlights: ..."according to an article by the Enterprise Mission & others, the true, hidden purpose of this experiment was to attempt to harness "hyper-dimensional" or aetheric energy from a vacuum. In this case the experiment was so successful that it actually melted the super-strong tether completely...& caused the satellite to slow with ionizing radiation as it drifted away from the shuttle."

..."the Tether UFOs are "vacuum domains", named by Dr. Alexey Dmitriev, V.L. Dyatlov, & A.V. Tetenov. They describe ...on the Millennium Group Web sight, how "balls of light", they call vacuum domains, are an area with clear boundaries where the aether is directly bleeding through to our physical reality & creating a measurable energy change."

..."the authors demonstrate that gravity waves are automatically transformed into electromagnetic waves inside the vacuum domain. These waves are then directly visible to us as light."

..."in the aether theory, both gravity & magnetism are simply different forms of aether in movement, so it would make sense that if you can create a large enough degree of movement of aether in a small area, then you would see the fields working together."

..."according to Dmitriev et al., these vacuum domains...can be quite large & can command the force of gravity...they are capable of having incredible power. The main properties of vacuum domains are...

-they are capable of penetrating matter at will
-they can emit or absorb light & other electromagnetic radiation in a wide frequency range
-they can cause electronic devices to stop functioning because of the strong electric field that they produce both inside & outside of themselves
-they will exhibit a measurable magnetic field
-they can distort gravitation fields, causing objects to levitate or become heavier
-they are in a constant state of rotation
-they possess a definite geometric form such as a sphere or "ellipsoid", which is basically a stretched out sphere

..."Dr. Dmitriev et al., speculate that these...vacuum domains are moving through space."

..."Nasa admits that they have satellite photos, discovered by Dr. Louis Frank that show a mystery phenomena that appear about 20 times a minute...showing the Earth's ionosphere is reacting with something that is creating 30 mile wide black spots in the UV spectrum."

..."NASA has long admitted that there are dark spots that show up on satellite photos. The main problem was there was no proof that such vacuum domains existed...until now. When we look at what he (Stubbs) discovered, we can clearly see that it...provides the missing link to explain why the Earth's ionosphere is being struck 20 times a minute by these so-called small comets."

..."When we combine Stubbs observations with this, we can expect to see that because of its sudden high electromagnetic charge, the satellite then attracted many "vacuum domains" to itself that had been freely drifting in space & transferring energy to them, making them easily visible & possibly expanding their physical size as well. The resulting effect, seen by millions on the internet when the (video) was 1st. released, is quite remarkable."

..."The obvious black hole in the middle of this formation could be where the rotational axis of the vacuum domain is flowing through....when we look at the image...we see the ring formation spreading out into a spiraling shape which is exactly what we would expect from the energy of a vacuum domain, flowing out from say, the northern pole, in a spiraling, rotating fashion as it makes its way to the southern pole."

..."The notch... is at the opposite end of the object's direction of travel, & may be formed by the vacuum domains outer field being disturbed by the dust & plasma in space as it moves along, creating a windsock effect over its entire surface except for in the middle, where the greater strength of its axis holds in more material."

..."another clue that these are energetic formations is that they were repeatedly seen to have a luminous "wobble' to them, & they drift relatively slowly, without exhibiting the speed & abrupt, angular turns in movement typical of most UFO sightings."

..."This certainly does not rule out the possibility that what we are seeing is indeed some form of ET Spacecraft."

David Wilcock has joined the rest of us, with something to really think about...so much more to consider than Jim Obergs "camera distortions" theory!



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
let me have a try at this...lol


there was no scheduled water dump just prior to the video in question



How can another person verify this? What was the time of the 'video in question' so we can compare it to the 'as-flown' timeline?

If you refuse to provide that time -- or don't know it yourself -- what is the basis of your assertion regarding the absence of the water dump?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
let me have a try at this...lol


there was no scheduled water dump just prior to the video in question



How can another person verify this? What was the time of the 'video in question' so we can compare it to the 'as-flown' timeline?

If you refuse to provide that time -- or don't know it yourself -- what is the basis of your assertion regarding the absence of the water dump?



exactly why i asked you to prove the claim you made

it seems you don't like your own medicine ?

:shk:







YOU made the claim that you can prove there was a scheduled dump



i said this....

can you post that info on this "scheduled" dump or do we just take your word on it ?


and YOU said this..

Yes, I can.






ARE YOU GOING TO POST THE INFO ON THE "SCHEDULED DUMP" OR NOT ?

IF THE ANSWER IS NO THEN DON'T EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE YOU


if you do bring it up again and don't post the evidence you will get one of these...




[edit on 27-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Great Post Mr Stubbs!

I will have to go and read that chapter.

I have long thought that these were a form of complex space charge configuration. I shall go check up on Dmitriev, Dyatlov, Tetenov's work; see what they have done.

Thanks for the Heads-up



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Are you blind?

Large parts of the whole video are white washed. The lower right hand corners is completely white washed for a considerable part of the video. The distortion goes way beyond the tether.

AND, as I have pointed out time and time again, there are no particles in the video when the camera moves to the tether, then the white dots appear.

If is was a water dump, we should have been seeing particles the whole time, from the beginning of the video.

Criminy.




THATS OVEREXPOSURE NOT DISTORTION!



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join