Originally posted by zorgon

What it is explaining is perfectly accurate, but not relevant to the objects in the video... nor do I have time or inclination to explain anything to you 'in *great* detail'

What 'mounds of data' would that be save your opinion and a wikipedia link? You are still ignoring the TIME that would be required for the Earth's gravity to have said effect. It would not show visible changes of that proportion as we see in the motion study over a 20 sec interval (the duration of the study) Now if you can find me a physics professor or orbital mechanic that can show me otherwise...

Really? You mean to tell me that the shuttle will not maintain orbit? Funny I thought for sure the orbital speed of the shuttle was such that it counteracted the 'fall' I understand from NASA that it would stay in orbit a very long time if the return engines failed. I am sure Jim Oberg could address that

So again it does not fit your theory... nice try though

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay then on with the Motion Study

I am going to pick out two objects that show very odd tracks. You can see them zoomed in on the video at 1:41. The action takes place between 1:41 and 1:48 a mere 7 seconds and in that time these two objects make several course changes.




Now at 1:46 Object #2 that was moving UP the screen, stops and reverses direction

Neither of these object show a parabolic curve and the direction reversal of only one object is unique in the sequence.

So no more misdirection and obfuscation... lets address the motion of these two object



I will ask Luna if he can clip out just this highlight into a loop

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, the camera artifact should change with the position of the bright object on the screen.

If this is really the result of a lens artifact, the notch should be, for example, on the top left when the object is on the top left of the screen, on the top centre when on the top centre of the screen and it the top right when the object is on the top right of the screen.

The artifact's position depends on the position of the object to the centre of the lens (or mirror, I think this problem happens with lens assemblies that use mirrors, like it happens with telescopes).

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, the camera artifact should change with the position of the bright object on the screen.

If this is really the result of a lens artifact, the notch should be, for example, on the top left when the object is on the top left of the screen, on the top centre when on the top centre of the screen and it the top right when the object is on the top right of the screen.

The artifact's position depends on the position of the object to the centre of the lens (or mirror, I think this problem happens with lens assemblies that use mirrors, like it happens with telescopes).

Very well stated

Now then can you apply that statement to these two consecutive screen shots?

Originally posted by Raybo58
The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

please also explain to me why they are all oriented exactly towards the camera so that their "donut holes" face us, and we see no objects of similar width from the side.

This one's a little tougher and remains, technically, theoretical.

Originally posted by JScytale
its moot when you realize they bloom out from defined points of light as they go out of focus.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
its moot when you realize they bloom out from defined points of light as they go out of focus.

No it's not moot... it goes directly to the debunking of the 'lens artifact' story Nice try though

Originally posted by JScytale
if you get someone to make a clip of them, don't use the 'enhanced' footage, use the *ORIGINAL*.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg

Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum

The 'UV camera' stories are nonsense -- the shuttle's external cameras, the ones that downlinked these images, are simple visible-light systems for physical monitoring of activities in the payload bay -- not scientific astronomiical instruments.

No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Raybo58
The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

Well they would IF the 'particles' are at the same distance as the tether... but then they would have to be large to show up from that distance.

Also the fact that when they zoom back out the 'particles' zoom out at about the same rate as the tether... which to me at least is strong indication that they are not small 'particles' outside the window

Nice point Starred

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
if you get someone to make a clip of them, don't use the 'enhanced' footage, use the *ORIGINAL*.

Okay I am done with you. Luna Cognita is the person who made the video that this thread is about...

It is about the motion study that you claim is 'as expected' to fit your 'theory' yet clearly they do not behave as you describe. I must therefor assume your sole purpose is to continue the distraction.

The clip WILL be from the enhanced version that this thread is about, otherwise it would be pointless as a demo.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg

Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum

The 'UV camera' stories are nonsense -- the shuttle's external cameras, the ones that downlinked these images, are simple visible-light systems for physical monitoring of activities in the payload bay -- not scientific astronomiical instruments.

No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.

Probably because I, of all people posting here, am most familiar with MCC operations.

The widely-posted STS-75 videos are from the visible-light payload bay cameras, as all records -- and the logs of the flight control team -- establish. The rest is unconstrained imagination.

The TOPS photos were not downlinked live. Call up the chief scientist and ask him.

The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Sadly, I've found that nobody whom Sereda has quoted as telling him this or that will, when asked, agree that such was what they said -- usually they get indignant and insist they told him the opposite, or never even brought the subject up.

It's worth checking. Either everybody in the world EXCEPT Sereda is a liar, or....