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: 93
77
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If you have analog data, it can most certainly be enhanced. If secretnasaman captured the original analog signal from NASA then it just depends on how good his recording device was.


Martyn has made it clear he was not capturing signals from NASA, he was recording transmissions from a commercial communications satellite of the 'NASA Channel' produced for the public, with image resolution aimed at the normal home TV set.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If you have digital data, it just depends on how good the digital data is. A picture recorded digitally is an array of hexadecimal numbers. This array has to be interpreted by what ever program is displaying the video or the picture. By looking at the individual numbers that comprise the picture, additional details can be brought out of the data.

Just a little off-topic correction.


Digital data is usually recorded in binary format, just '1's and '0's, but if a file system is used (like by having a MPEG video) then the data is stored (usually) in bytes, a number between 0 and 255.

As the data is made up of numbers (0 or 1, 0 to 255, 0 to 65535, etc.), there is no way of really getting "additional detail", the only thing that can be done is to make more noticeable the more subtle changes.

For example, if the highest number present in a specific image or frame from a video is 128 and the lowest number is 0, the image can be "stretched", by multiplying all values by 2. That does not create more data, but it makes the existing data more visible, because a change from 0 to 2 is more noticeable than a change from 0 to 1.

There have been several attempts at recreating data, but even the more promising (like fractal based interpolation) have failed to produce results better than the existing systems for anything above 150% resizing.

A system that gives good results is super-resolution, but it uses several images from the same subject, so it's not as effective in video as in photography, but maybe we can get some results with a video like this one, in which all objects move slowly.

That was one of the reasons I have asking for a better version that the YoutTube one (and anything is better than YouTube
), with a better quality video maybe we can get some enhancements.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If the little white dots are not in the video until the tether arrives, then the only reasonable explanation is that what ever creates these little white dots in the video emerged into sunlight with the tether, which means that they are close to the tether.


If the camera didn't move, and we watched the tether and the dots come into sunlight at the same time, then I would agree that one likely explanation would be that the dots are near the tether. That seems to be your premise.

But that's not what the video shows. We can't tell when the particles came into sunlight, and we can't tell when the tether came into sunlight, as by the time the camera moved to aim at them they were both already in sunlight. So we don't know if the particles came into sunlight outside the camera's (relatively narrow) field of view some time before the tether did, or not.

If the camera hadn't moved your argument would actually be very convincing, but it is the camera movement which brings the tether and particles into view at the same time, and we don't know when the sunlight first hit either as the camera was pointing in the wrong direction to tell.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
EASYNOW...I'm not intending to 'paint you in any corner'..don't worry!...I've read your posts & many are not getting answers,... & now mine are being ignored, ...

RE: imaging...I am only passing on, as a "non secret" ATS member (!), info about people who are willing to try anything new in image analysis to help out...not endorsing it...& I am not to share this with ATS members in future because someone does not like them?...I guess this shows me that it is inevitable that Jim & Co. are going to attack every person I even mention... over things I can't control...familiar tactics for those who are debunkers by trade.

And thank goodness I have some friends here (don't worry, I won't mention any names!)..., to help me out when I am being "blinded" by "lens" science!

Still, I am confused as to whether Jim Oberg has NASA provided STS-75 (it was embargoed) footage or not...& whether he is refusing to post it ?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

---

I have a "Plextor PX-TV402-U Convertex" Analog RCA-V/A or S-Video Input(Video Cassette Player) to Digital Format (Direct to PC). It works well for converting.

Only used it for converting VHS to Digital, but have never uploaded to YouTube. But I believe it's quite simple after the conversion would be my guess.

Decoy



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
EASYNOW...I'm not intending to 'paint you in any corner'..don't worry!...I've read your posts & many are not getting answers,... & now mine are being ignored, ...


This is a pretty boisterous give-and-take thread so if posted questions don't get responded to, reminders are needed. For example, here are some recent refutations and debunking of Martyn’s claims, not responded to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



And thank goodness I have some friends here (don't worry, I won't mention any names!)..., to help me out when I am being "blinded" by "lens" science!


This is a clever device, since in the past, when Martyn claimed he had useful evidence and testimony from space experts that he named, when checked by third parties seeking corroboration, these people energetically refuted Martyn's version of the conversations. Is this proof that all spoke 'out of school' to a stranger, and all were then silenced by the dark forces -- or, alternately, that Martyn's version of what they told him doesn't correspond to what they recall trying to tell him? Actually, I can't think of a single example of finding somebody whom Martyn quoted by name, who later confirmed the authenticity of what Martyn was claiming he had been told by them.


Still, I am confused as to whether Jim Oberg has NASA provided STS-75 (it was embargoed) footage or not...& whether he is refusing to post it ?


I never encountered any embargo on STS-75 video. Does Martyn have any evidence that NASA ever embargoed it, aside from his remembered version? Any real, checkable evidence?

[edit on 19-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Jim...The embargo evidence is from the same press conference that reported the "tether switch" to a used clunker, from the previous STS-46 failed 1st. "tether satellite" mission ...4 years earlier ...remember?

You told me I was delusional about that (!)...& (as usual) asked for the proof...I posted it at my secretnasaman channel on You Tube. You were wrong then & are again! Get NASA to actually play the whole thing for you...the "embargo" is talked about..& called an "Embargo" to boot..Check it out before you go down that hole...I'm not doing any more research for you...research that you should have done a long time ago.

Also...this is the old ploy of the skeptic..."if I don't know about it, then it can't be true"

And...Jim ridicules people (as you can see) who I have mentioned, so why would I give him any more names?

Also Jim, do you have a copy of this video from NASA? That's all I am trying to get you to answer.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Ron Nussbeck ROFPMSL

If you are going to use his methods give up now! he must be the guy CSI uses when they zoom in on a picture or video and they seem to end up with a clearer picture than the original was.

His methods have been discussed on here in other postS they are total
RUBBISH!!!!

link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

An example of his work


image.examiner.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
You have proved my point that when I do give a name of somebody who is willing to try something, like this guy is...you ATTACK him!!!

I've never met him, but do you want me to refuse any help...& bury this?

& Jim...the gents name re: the "embargo" on all tether materials, Data & Video...is Space Shuttle Program Manager Tommy Holloway...ask him!
(I trust you won't attack this mans credibility?...!)



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
You have proved my point that when I do give a name of somebody who is willing to try something, like this guy is...you ATTACK him!!!

I've never met him, but do you want me to refuse any help...& bury this?


Here's an idea, try to find some other experts in image processing and enhancement technology and get some other opinions from some other experts instead of depending on what only one guy says. Based on what I've seen of the work done by the source you've chosen, I think you are better off sticking with the unaltered tape. After all, what easynow really asked for was just something better than the youtube quality, so if you've got that, why not share that? Personally I'd rather see just a better copy than the youtube version without any "enhancements", if you're going to share another version at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



After all, what easynow really asked for



i asked for everyone and not just me.
this is about everyone finding the truth

just say no to a different youtube copy and Foo's are real.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


I suggest you look at what has been said about that supposed image enhancement technique on several ATS threads.

It's not a question of attacking (with out without capital letters
) him because he has some connection with you, it's because of what he has been saying for some years (at least two), well before you made any reference to him.

Once more, if you want to keep your credibility, avoid having your name connected to him, specially saying that the video will be "enhanced" by him, it will be useless (if the method is the same as the one used on the photos) and will only stain your reputation.

Obviously, you can ignore this advice, but don't if things do not work as you expect do not say that you were not warned.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you ever look at the raw numbers that create an image you will see that it is a list of hexadecimal numbers.

8 switches create a byte which has 256 possible values. If you want a pixel of a specific color, would use a hexadecimal number, not a binary number, to identify the color.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


This means that the transmission was analog, and the signal quality was pretty good. It isn't big screen theater quality, but good enough for an excellent picture on a 60" screen.

This would mean that the analog recording, if of decent quality, could be sharpened a great deal by people who know what they are doing. Certainly i could be a lot better than what we are getting off of Utube.

Clearly you people understand nothing about A/D conversion or microwave technology.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Hexadecimal is just a way of representing those values, the same as decimal, octal or other system we want to use, it doesn't change the fact that today's computers use binary systems, in which there are only two values, '0' or '1', corresponding to 'on' or 'off' (or, more correctly, 'low current' and 'higher current') on the transistors with which those systems are made.

Hexadecimal is used because it is handy to change 256 (the total possible values of all bits in a byte) to FF and work with that, but you can use anything, even BCD.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


no problem secretnasaman it's cool with me. i don't mind at least looking at some different perspectives even if everyone else is not willing to. maybe the guy will do something different than what he has been doing to those previous jobs he worked on. maybe you will find another alternative. i don't know but i won't ridicule you for posting something no matter how crazy it might turn out to be. good luck and let me know if anything interesting happens with it.
thanks and talk to you later.




[edit on 19-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
well, Poet1b, you are in big contradiction for your own statements....more, you mock me and accuse me of something which was only first a misunderstooding from my part, based on your earlier statements, but imediatelly corected by me...yet you still mock me..

Let's see what happened below.
I tried to quote full statements, not only one phrase or so, to let the context to remain. But I marked relevant statements with bold characters, to understand what is the issue in discussion.




Firsts, let's see how YOU CONTRADICT yourself, during this long thread:


From the following quote, posted earlier by you, Poet1b, i understand you don't believe what astronauts - directly involved in space activities- say about what they see in space:



reply posted on 13-6-2009 by poet1b

I have also heard other terms have been used by astronauts, such as space critters, or bugs, and other references that there are things seen in space that are never explained.

Of all the characteristics Astronauts need in order to be accepted by the space program, keeping their mouths shut about what they see, and leaving all revelation of observations up the control of upper muckity mucks is probably the most important, as far as the PTB at NASA are concerned. As long as these astronauts want to continue to strap themselves into rockets and launch themselves into outerspace, they must keep their mouths shut about certain things, and know what they can and can not say, even on videos that are not planned on being released.

Conspiracy theorist are people who figured out that the official version, and what really happened are often very different things, and are therefore suspicious of the government, and all institutions in general. If these UFOs in this video are something more than ice crystals, historical evidence shows that there is a good probability that NASA wouldn't tell anyone, and their astronauts would have to comply.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...







Also, from another earlier post from you, Poet1b, i understand about the same, you don't trust official version:



reply posted on 14-6-2009 by poet1b

Yeah, and the people who buy the official version Think they are being told the truth. As the saying goes, believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear. The only people know for sure that the official version is correct are the people who witnessed the event, and even they aren't sure of what they saw.

When you have numerous witnesses, and film that says things happened far differently than the official version, it only makes sense to question the official version. If you still choose not to question the official version when everything points to a deception, you might also choose to believe that everyone who questions the official version is delusional, rather than face the possibility that you are the one who is delusional. Not that I am accusing you of this, just replying since you brought it up.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...




Now look what Armap says about this, in response to you:



reply posted on 14-6-2009 by ArMaP
[]
We have the video and we have an eyewitness that says during the video that those things are "debris, that kind of flies with us", in this case is the unofficial version that ignores the witness.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



and what you say, Poet1b, to Armap, in response to this? ...again, you don't trust official version, even from direct witness, the astronaut describing what he see. Look what you said:



reply posted on 14-6-2009 by poet1b / reply to ArMaP

We have an eye witness that works for the government, and has to agree to certain levels of discrepancy when making statements about what they see in space. The witness you are referring to is the person giving the official version.

You keep implying that people who see things differently than the official reason are less entitled to their opinions than the people who agree with the official version. If you THINK the official explanation is right, then you are buying into the official explanation. There have been many times when the official explanation has disagreed with the witnesses and the facts. Thus it is very valid to question the official explanation/version of things.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...






Next, you, Poet1b, continue to mark your opinion that you don't trust anything from organizations directly involved [including NASA here] and its statements, look:



reply posted on 15-6-2009 by poet1b / reply to ArMaP

I guess it is all part of the learning curve. Personally, when I reach the point where the evidence I see tells me that an individual or an institution is intentionally distorting the truth, I no longer trust that person or organization, and there after, I doubt everything I here from that organization. What is being distorted is a critical factor in this decision process, but that is another discussion.

Long ago I figured out that you can not trust anything you hear from the government, or any corporation, or institutional at all from my experience. I hope and suspect this is a cyclic trend. Thus, I am a conspiracy theorist in this day and age. With this understanding in mind, every bit of information you get has already been subject to interpretation, which brings me to my next point. What do we really know about this video?

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



So, you see, Poet1b, you stated again and again that you don't trust NASA or its direct workers/astronauts/direct witnesses. You are entitled to have this opinnion, and since you said to us, this was the message i received, logically.


next...




[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield] edited to add links to the sources

[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
...continued:


Knowing your above opinnion..... when later in this thread, just a few days before, when you make this statement:


reply posted on 17-11-2009 by poet1b

Ah, the mysterious ice crystals now might have formed in some strange new way. It is amazing how people will cling to hope, even though all evidence points to the contrary.

The crew who observed several water dumps in space, and identified them as crystals, some how didn't identify what we see in the tether video as ice crystals, but debris. Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?

Amazing that people cling to these levels of denial.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



.. i took your statement ("Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?") as being ironical.


So, in response to you, i said this:



reply posted on 17-11-2009 by depthoffield


Originally posted by poet1b
Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?


there are two reasons for not believing people in space who directly observed things:
1) there are strong indications that what he describes is wrong
2) you don't want to believe what he says because you have something to tell or sell and therefore, what astronaut says is NOT convenable to you

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Now, your response was an accusation on me:


reply posted on 17-11-2009 by poet1b

All of your claims are nothing but stuff you have made up. Now according to you the astronauts in space can't be trusted, and only your superior observations.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Understanding that I may wrongly understood your statement ("Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?") as being ironical, next post I made the necessary clarification:




reply posted on 17-11-2009 by depthoffield

who says i didn't trust astronauts? I didn't said that.
I trust them here when saying:
"there is some debris which flying with us, lit by the sun", when he describe the image seen when ground control ask him. I quoted this astronaut sentence a few times before.

When i said in my above post, about two reasons to not believe what direct witness says, i said it to those which denies what astronauts says in general. Also, i misunderstood your phrase as beeing ironical. Well, thanks for clarification, i have your statement that you also trust what direct wittness (astronaut) says. So we both trust what astronaut says:
"we have some debris which flying with us, lit by the sun"

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



But what you, Poet1b, continued to do next? Mock and obfuscate me again and again...example:



reply posted on 17-11-2009 by poet1b


Originally posted by depthoffield
there are two reasons for not believing people in space who directly observed things:
1) there are strong indications that what he describes is wrong



Clearly you are saying here that the people in space, the astronauts, are not able to accurately report what they are seeing.

I am quoting the reports to back up my claims, the only thing you base your opinion on is your supposed superior knowledge and understanding which has been proven completely wrong be the NASA study and List of Camera Scenes.

And your second supposed reason.

Originally posted by depthoffield
2) you don't want to believe what he says because you have something to tell or sell and therefore, what astronaut says is NOT convenable to you


Exactly where do I post anything about wanting to sell anything?

And exactly who do I not want to believe. My version of events completely agrees with the assessments of the astronauts, you are the one wanting to claim different.

You have absolutely no leg to stand on in this debate, and yet you still insist you are right.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



another example:


reply posted on 18-11-2009 by poet1b

I didn't take anything out of context, what a gross distortion on your part. Depth of Field clearly states that "there are strong reasons for not believing people in space".

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



I clarified my statement, and i said that I believe what direct wittness says here in STS-75 video, including the astronauts/ground control here in STS-75 video.


next...







[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield] edited to add links to the sources

[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
..continued...


I ask you Poet1b to stop mocking me.

Don't say "I, Poet1b, don't trust NASA and even its direct witnesses", and later say the oppossite "I, Poet1b, trust direct witnesses, and you, DoF, are a bad person because you dare to not trust what direct witness says"


Poet1b, please learn to be consequent in your statements!. Assume what you are saying, don't play games (only trolls play this kind of games). Don't change your statement with 180 degree in response to whatever course the discussion is going with the purpose to mock the interlocutor.


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





Now regarding what direct witness, the astronaut, says:


"well, the long line is the tether, and there is a litle bit of debris, that kind of flies with us, and it's illuminated by the sun






On one hand, you say:


reply posted on 6-8-2009 by poet1b

As far as it being debri floating just outside of the shuttle, nine days into the mission, it simply wouldn't be there, and especially not in that quantity. We have a NASA study that describes this. Effluent dumps and vector thrust firings shoot out and way from the shuttle and quickly fall back to the Earth. The debri that can be seen floating outside of the shuttle comes from particulates and moisture that settled into the cracks of the shuttle while it was on the ground, that work there way out of the cracks as the shuttle orbits the Earth. Nine days into the mission, the are all pretty much gone, you might see one stray particle, but not the number in this video.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...


or you say:


reply posted on 8-11-2009 AM by poet1b

Of all the evidence considered on this thread, I think the NASA study on objects observed in video footage of NASA shuttle missions is key. The study

describes exactly what most of us observe in our recognition that we are not seeing debri floating just outside of the shuttle in this video.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...



and on the other hand, now, you say vice-versa, you trust what astronaut says, when he says ("there is a litle bit of debris, that kind of flies with us, and it's illuminated by the sun"), that there were debris:


reply posted on 17-11-2009 by poet1b

The crew who observed several water dumps in space, and identified them as crystals, some how didn't identify what we see in the tether video as ice crystals, but debris. Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

..and therewith accuse me for not trusting what astronaut says....




Finnally, you, Poet1b, agree with the astronauts, and with me, that what we see in the image, is the tether and debris (at least partially i pressume)

I know you promote the ideea that there are other unidentified stuff. But...


I have a simple question for you:

Since there in the image are debris, and you agree with this, show me a few examples of objects there, which you accepted as beeing debris.
It is a simple request, beyound any misunderstanding between us. Somehow i didn't expect for you to go for this simple request, but i have the hope.






[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield] corectted youtube link

[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield] edited to add links to the sources

[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
i understood why Poet1 said what he said and why he did, but really,

what good is all this he said she said stuff and what's it going to do to help this investigation ? this constant back and forth "i am going to out due you" mentality stuff is why i don't even want to post in this thread anymore.




new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join