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: 70
77
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Do you have any links to this information?

If you could provide a source that backs up the claim that NASA recognizes that this phenomenon, which we observe in this Tether video, does exist around the tether, then that would put all of these claims about particles near the shuttle to rest, and we could move on with the discussion.

Black holes seem to be the catch all these days to explain everything. It seems to me that a plasma form could absorb or block light, to explain dark spots. We know plasma exists, while the black hole concept is still pretty shaky.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


That's a really cool flag you have there.

Do you know where I could get one?

edit, oops, spelling.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Once again, criminy!

www.merriam-webster.com...


Main Entry: dis·tor·tion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈstȯr-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1581

1 : the act of distorting
2 : the quality or state of being distorted : a product of distorting: as a : a lack of proportionality in an image resulting from defects in the optical system b : falsified reproduction of an audio or video signal caused by change in the wave form of the original signal

— dis·tor·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective


Overexposure creates distortion, as the optical systems includes the electronics.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


trust me , you don't want one



interesting point you made about no objects are seen when the video first starts. you would think we would see some because later in the video some of the objects are racing across the FOV ?






it's all BOKEH !


[edit on 28-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
no, easynow, not all are bokeh. Only the ones when zoomed on them and appears as discs. All the discs are bokeh. When zoomed out, all objects are within the depth of field of the lens, therefore are in good focus, so in this - unzoomed situation, they are not bokeh (including the ones which are bokeh-discs when zoomed on them). I've provided links earlier, regarding what depth of field it is, and what are the factors influencing it, so it should not be a mistery for how about optics works.




One question: does anyone knows the date when these movies are recorded? I mean, STS-75 mission happened between 22 february to 9 Mars 1996.
But the actual date when these movies are done?

Secretnasaman, you read this topic, and, i believe you know the date of the movies, since you are the one which recorded them. Please tell us. It is simple, and this is a contribution of this research.

Also, JimOberg, you also could give this information...what was the date of this movies (STS-75 - "swarm-tether)" ?
Because, you appear to know this information, because you said:


Since the STS-75 flight records show that the famous "swarm/tether" scene was made three days after the tether break (and not immediately afterwards, as many viewers were led to misconstrue),

source: www.rense.com...

Also, if anyone else knows the date of this movies, tell us.
Thanks.







[edit on 28/10/09 by depthoffield]


[edit on 28/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



interesting point you made about no objects are seen when the video first starts. you would think we would see some because later in the video some of the objects are racing across the FOV ?


That supports my theory on that the objects we are seeing is debris from the tether.
In the beginning where the camera is directed at there are no objects moving around.
But when they re-direct the camera to the area where the tether is it's just swarming with these "fire-flies"


These objects are electrically/plasma charged and or reflecting the sunlight in the same way the tether does.
The objects are small, no more than 2cm- 5cm in width.

Even if the shuttle would have done a water dump, they are in direct sunlight and the ice would boil away and disappear with in seconds.

Ofcourse this is just a theory of mine, and theories are just that, nothing until proved otherwise.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996. The 1st sighting by the crew was at 10:19 C.T. & was videotaped during a loss of signal period, but was down-linked ASAP when the picture was restored. A brief clip of the tether as a small dot unwinding at 150 N. miles was shown. The next time it was spotted & videotaped/downloaded was at 11:17 PM C.T. at a distance of 90 N. miles...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996.


well, i don't quite understand it..

You say that tether was breaking was in 29 feb 1996 ? Or just the movie of the swarm/tether, which we discuss it on this topic, was in 29 feb 1996? Confirm or infirm me the date and it's meaning, thank you.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 



That supports my theory on that the objects we are seeing is debris from the tether.


how so ?

you missed the whole point of what i said.




some of the objects are racing across the FOV ?


the objects are moving across the FOV in all different directions and different speeds. if the same camera was used in the beginning of the video and then panned towards the tether and the objects are close to the camera as people are claiming then we would no doubt see some of these objects in the beginning of the video before the camera moves.


if it was a swarm of bees close to the camera don't you think it would be difficult to get a picture without any bees in it ?

bzzzzzzzzzz...








[edit on 28-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Perhaps the tether was creating a form of complex space charge configuration. The tether is creating them (and attracting them?).

Now that I think about it - perhaps this inverted video of the tether event may actually show complex plasma forms being created...




Hey easynow,

I like your stuff about the bomb in the Apollo thread. The denial is fun to watch.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



how so ?


Because at the beginning we do not see any "objects" floating around.
The camera shows quite a big area close to the shuttle, if it were ice floating around they would be seen from the beginning of the filming.
But as they redirect the camera towards the tether we see the swarming of these objects.
But the movement of the camera takes in a bigger piece still close to the shuttle, and nothing is seen until the tether is spotted.

This to me suggests that the "objects" are further away from the shuttle.
Then, let's say a water dump.


the objects are moving across the FOV in all different directions and different speeds. if the same camera was used in the beginning of the video and then panned towards the tether and the objects are close to the camera as people are claiming then we would no doubt see some of these objects in the beginning of the video before the camera moves.


if it was a swarm of bees close to the camera don't you think it would be difficult to get a picture without any bees in it ?

bzzzzzzzzzz...

That is exactly my point.
Either you did read my entire post and misunderstood it.
Or you did not read it completely


We are probably going to disagree on what is out there with the tether....
I say debris from the tether itself, no bigger than 2-5cm in width.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
Even if the shuttle would have done a water dump, they are in direct sunlight and the ice would boil away and disappear with in seconds.


You are being grossly misled by your own imaginary pseudo-facts, such as this. Ice formed from water dumps persists for tens of minutes, and bigger pieces are stable for hours, even days.

Back off, recognize the greater-than-expected depth of your ignorance, study and learn, and then re-approach the problem. Your energy is commendable and a worthy contribution -- your overconfidence in your imaginary factoids is not.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


ok i understand what your saying but you do realize this video was supposedly taken a day or more after the tether broke right ?

i don't see how a cloud of particles from the broken tether from a day previous or day's could just happen to be right there with the shuttle.

and do you also realize your theory is completely different than what the so called experts that have been posting in this thread believe ?




it's possible that this video has been heavily edited (not by Stubbs) and until we see NASA's version, i personally won't be satisfied with anyone's explanation....... just saying



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Perhaps the tether was creating a form of complex space charge configuration. The tether is creating them (and attracting them?).


certainly possible. from reading up on the tether i found they did plan on many different kinds of experiments. even some experiments related to plasma and water while the tether was deployed. i'm still looking into that. glad your enjoying the skeptical show in the other thread, i am too
it's hillarious



[edit on 28-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


WOW dude, you are pretty harsh here in your criticisms. What makes you spew such bile on people when they point out evidence that shows that we are not looking at objects close to the shuttle in this video?

It indicates that there is something personal here at stake with you on this video, which weighs considerably on you.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Bokeh!

Interesting word, I will have to start using it more often. Good word for a wiki link. Those people certainly know how to work search engines, almost always at the top.

en.wikipedia.org...


In photography, bokeh is the blur,[1][2] or the æsthetic quality of the blur,[3][4][5] in out-of-focus areas of an image. Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively.[1] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image (see ostrich picture to the right).
Silky bokeh produced by a Nikon 200-400mm f/4 zoom lens.

The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け), which means "blur" or "haze". The English spelling bokeh was introduced in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue.[2] He altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers. It can be pronounced /ˈboʊkeɪ/ or /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-aay[6] or boke-uh[7]).

The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 1998.[8]


I would say that everything in this video is distorted, primarily due to the adjustment that controls how sensitive the recording is to the amount of light, commonly controlled by what most people know as brightness and contrast.

Bokeh has nothing to do with it, being that even the object of primary interest is distorted in this video.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


i hope you realize i said that in a sarcastic way ?... it was a joke







picture of the tether with a "visitor" ?



www.abovetopsecret.com...


what happened to Zorgon anyone know ?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Yes, completely, my whole response was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Another visitor?

Or some kid from the neighborhood checking out our latest installation?

Or someone trying to figure out what to do about this latest invasion of their territory?

Hmm, suddenly the angle of why this could all be so personal starts to come into focus.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by easynow
 


Bokeh!

Interesting word, I will have to start using it more often. Good word for a wiki link. Those people certainly know how to work search engines, almost always at the top.

en.wikipedia.org...


In photography, bokeh is the blur,[1][2] or the æsthetic quality of the blur,[3][4][5] in out-of-focus areas of an image. Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively.[1] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image (see ostrich picture to the right).
Silky bokeh produced by a Nikon 200-400mm f/4 zoom lens.

The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け), which means "blur" or "haze". The English spelling bokeh was introduced in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue.[2] He altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers. It can be pronounced /ˈboʊkeɪ/ or /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-aay[6] or boke-uh[7]).

The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 1998.[8]


I would say that everything in this video is distorted, primarily due to the adjustment that controls how sensitive the recording is to the amount of light, commonly controlled by what most people know as brightness and contrast.

Bokeh has nothing to do with it, being that even the object of primary interest is distorted in this video.


The BOKEH appear because the objects they are, are out of focus!
Even you must see that the bokeh shape changes to nice bright disc or point when the zoom happens ,Bokeh will always happen if objects are out of focus its a property of the light and the LENS making statement about it may convince you and your buddys thats all!
The primary object is not distotred by the lens until the hollow shape appears in the tether

www.bokehtests.com...

Have a look at object D, what happens when a thin line becomes a bokeh, remind you of anything!

Another thing because the tether was so far away its infinity to the lens another property to that if the lens is focused at that distance the bokeh shapes must be closer and cant be behind the tether because at infinity every thing would be in focus from the first depth of field point to infinity so all those shapes must be before the first focus point.
If you check the depth of field tables for lenses you will see that.
When the field of view is zoomed back these objects come into focus you can see that happen.

Its an optical effect from 5:30 on!

www.youtube.com...


People like you and you buddys with this belief ALWAYS have a problem with PHOTOGRAPHY, THE NO STARS IN MOON PICS being a prime example!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


i think the ufo hunters video is very misleading,




1-they did not do the experiments in the proper context

2-they did not have NASA's camera

3-they did not examine the majority of the video

4-they did not have the raw video data

5-they did not identify what the objects are



it was a weak attempt to debunk the STS75 video




[edit on 28-10-2009 by easynow]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join