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: 97
77
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Well, I have to admit I was wrong on ice particle sublimation in space.

It happens sometimes. What IF you may be wrong about other presuppositions?

Like the following:



Originally posted by poet1b

These particles show no evidence of returning to the spacecraft.


So, even though these particles last for a couple of orbits they don't return to the shuttle. The evidence of what we see in shuttle videos still stands. What we are seeing in the STS-75 tether video still can not be explained as particles close to the shuttle.


First, not only ice particles are generated by the shuttle, but other kind of debris also...for example flakes of paint and insulation because of thermal stress from the sunlight.

Second, these particles have the potential to return to the shuttle because of orbital motions (the "zig-zag", for some people laughed here))

Here is a scientifical study named:

CONTAMINATION OF SPACECRAFT BY RECONTACT OF DUMPED LIQUIDS

by

M. E. Fowler, L. J. Leger,
M. E. Donahoo, and P. D. Maley

source: ntrs.nasa.gov...


It has been reported that particles contacted the orbiter on STS-8 and STS-61A during subsequent orbits after water dumps





Liquids partially freeze when dumped from spacecraft producing particles which are released into free space at various velocities. Recontact of these particles with the spacecraft is possible for specific particle sizes and velocities and, therefore, can become contamination for experiments within the spacecraft or released experiments as a result of waste and potable water dumped from Space Shuttle. An examination of dump characteristics was conducted on STS-29 using both on-board video records and ground based measurements. A preliminary analysis of data from this flight indicates particle velocities are in the range of 30 to 75 ft/sec and recontact is possible for limited particle sizes.





Several times during a mission, the Space Shuttle Orbiter has to release water which has accumulated from the fuel cells. Due to the vacuum environment into which they are being released, the water flash evaporates, leaving small ice particles. There has been some concern that the motion imparted to these particles could return them to the orbiter during subsequent orbits. This could lead to contamination of experiments in the payload bay and in the extreme, damage to materials such as the thermal protection system tiles. It has been reported that particles contacted the orbiter on STS-8 and STS-61A during subsequent orbits after water dumps (i) . As a consequence, water dumps are being planned more carefully with respect to the orientation of the orbiter during the dump. Judicious angles at which the water is released can lead to the water reentering (7) the earth's atmosphere prior to recontact with the vehicle.




CONCLUSIONS
It was found that a larger particle has a longer time in orbit. Breaking up the particles into smaller spheres will have some effect on the decay time and therefore provides another means by which recontact can be avoided. The atmospheric density also plays a key role in the decay of the particle orbits. It was shown that the 1985 atmosphere had less of an effect on the orbit of the particles than the 1989 atmosphere. Since density of the atmosphere is a changing function of time, it is another parameter to take into account for the entire problem.



So, you see again, particles (of ice from water dump)in space where shuttle is orbitting, don't dissapear fast, and also, could come back to the shuttle.

I don't know if for sure recontact on subsequent orbits is it the case here in our beloved sts-75 videos, but it is a possibility.

Also, you again maintain yourself in the state of simple denials, when you dismiss what DIRECT evidence from the videos show:
- the BOKEH,
- depth of field proof when defocusing and focusing again:







[edit on 23/11/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
- depth of field proof when defocusing and focusing again:


I too am impressed with poet1b admitting he was wrong about ice sublimation, it takes a big person to admit that but I think we all knew poet is intelligent enough to be convinced by real evidence or we wouldn't have tried to convince him.

Now if poet can apply some of that good intelligence to looking at that smoking gun video that proves those particles are close to the shuttle, maybe he'll admit he was wrong about the particles being close to the tether, as that video would not be possible if the particles were close to the tether, the objects would not focus and defocus in that manner relative to the way the tether focuses and defocuses.

So how about it poet? Please study the video and see if it really proves the particles aren't at the distance of the tether, I think you'll find it proves they aren't.

Good work DOF, starred your post!.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks Jim, it was actually fun doing the research. I was pretty confident that vacuum would trump heat transfer, and we would get the vapor ice situation, but we didn't. I find this new information to be some pretty interesting stuff, especially that the vapor actually re-condensates. This is pretty good evidence that there may be a great deal of ice floating around in space.

From this latest link on water dumps, it seems that there is concern about the water dumps contaminating the shuttle, and so when they dump this water, the spray it down and out the back of the shuttle. Still, as you point out, some ice particles wind up floating along in the vicinity of the shuttle. We know this, and that they are seen in the camera. Still, these particles drop away normally within 10 minutes.

If you look at the last reported water dump on the scene list, there does seem to be a very large gap between water dumps when the footage in question was taken. You have someone you know that says there was a water dump hours earlier, no reason not believe this.

The thing is, if orbits are 90 minutes, and if the last water dump was 3 hours or more earlier, then the shuttle would have completed two orbits after the water dump, having gone through the daylight cycle twice. This still means that it would be extremely unlikely that any ice particles from the space shuttle would still be flying along with the space shuttle, We now have two NASA studies which state this.

Maybe, but very unlikely, a few of the things we see in the tether video are ice particles, but odds are greatly against this.

Far more likely, most, if not all of the things we see in the tether video are not ice particles from a water dump, and in fact are in the vicinity of the tether, as we see them come into view with the tether.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Dof, the NASA report I linked to clearly states that particles do NOT come back to the shuttle. I even quoted this statement from the article saying just that. That was an external, ex, quote.

The article of the study you linked to is specifically done to avoid having particles come back to the shuttle. The article states the following.


As can be seen in these two figures, a retrograde release of the ice particles, regardless of the size of the particle, results in
deorbit of the particles in a timely fashion, posing absolutely no threat to the orbiter.


Being that the articles make it very clear that re-contact is something to be avoided, what type of release do you think they made during STS-75?

Chances are good that anytime a dump isn't done with the shuttle in the correct orientation, it is noted due to the possibility of re-contact.

At what point in time does it sink in that all the evidence points to there NOT being particles from a water dump near the shuttle. In fact ALL the evidence points to there not being any reasonable source for so many particles floating near the shuttle.

Also, in the video you posted, the tether focus changes quite a bit. To me, it looks like the changes in the appearance of the tether appears to be in sync with the changes of the UFOs around it.

Edit to clear up mistakes.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
With the current mission nearly over, the guys who need to dig out the STS-75 Execute Packages (with the correct day of flight, not erroneous based on the DRAFT scene list as in my 9-year-old Rense report) can turn their attention to PAO requests, relayed from me.

Whatever we learn, we'll be better off... and closer to the truth.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Also, in the video you posted, the tether focus changes quite a bit. To me, it looks like the changes in the appearance of the tether appears to be in sync with the changes of the UFOs around it.


Look more closely. When an object is less focused it appears larger and less defined, and when it's more focused, it appears smaller and more defined.

So for example, when the tether is most focused (at infinity) it's the smallest, and when the focus is moved closer, the tether becomes defocused and larger. As that happens, what happens to the size of the particles? Do they also get larger like the tether as you suggest, to be "in sync" with it? No, exactly the opposite happens, the particles get smaller. That's how a photographer can tell they're not at the distance of the tether.

Perhaps you're not a photographer so you're not sure exactly what you're looking at, but after you study photography a little more and how objects become appear to become larger as they are defocused, then it will make sense to you.

@Jim Oberg, that's good news! Thanks for the update.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Look more closely. When an object is less focused it appears larger and less defined, and when it's more focused, it appears smaller and more defined..


I don't know if it's the focus changing, or the automatic gain control.

Both can be manually controlled by the crew (and the MCC), but the AGC often cycles on its own because of control circuit lags.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


If it was automatic gain control, I would expect it to affect the objects similarly, to make their changes appear "in sync" as poet1b says they are, but they are not in sync with the size changes. So I do understand how the AGC could make in sync effects but not out of sync effects like we see. Therefore it seems likely to be focus.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't know if it's the focus changing, or the automatic gain control.

Both can be manually controlled by the crew (and the MCC), but the AGC often cycles on its own because of control circuit lags.


When they change the gain, the general brightness of the scene is modified accordingly. This doesn't happen here.

Also, some particles (discs) became smaller but brighter, DIRECT EVIDENCE for getting better focus (more focus means the same light in a smaller surface, thus increased brightness)

Also, the stars lose their focus, almost dissapear, during the moments when the lens is maximum defocused from the infinite. Which means that the lens is focused CLOSER than infinite.




[edit on 25/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Dof, the NASA report I linked to clearly states that particles do NOT come back to the shuttle. I even quoted this statement from the article saying just that. That was an external, ex, quote.

The article of the study you linked to is specifically done to avoid having particles come back to the shuttle. The article states the following.


As can be seen in these two figures, a retrograde release of the ice particles, regardless of the size of the particle, results in
deorbit of the particles in a timely fashion, posing absolutely no threat to the orbiter.


Being that the articles make it very clear that re-contact is something to be avoided, what type of release do you think they made during STS-75?

Chances are good that anytime a dump isn't done with the shuttle in the correct orientation, it is noted due to the possibility of re-contact.

At what point in time does it sink in that all the evidence points to there NOT being particles from a water dump near the shuttle. In fact ALL the evidence points to there not being any reasonable source for so many particles floating near the shuttle.

Also, in the video you posted, the tether focus changes quite a bit. To me, it looks like the changes in the appearance of the tether appears to be in sync with the changes of the UFOs around it.

Edit to clear up mistakes.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by poet1b]


We can ask you the same at what point does it sink in with the photographic and video evidence that these objects are close to the shuttle and camera

We have proof that that the bokeh effect is caused by the lens when a small bright object is out of focus.
We have video proof on here that the bokeh object can look like it passes behind the tether although its in front.
We have depth of field tables for lenses which prove that these bokeh objects could not be at same distance or behind the tether because they would be in focus due to depth of field of a lens focused at that distance.
We have proof again because of depth of field of lenes these objects must be close to the camera.

So please let us know when that sinks in!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I think that just like the reports from NASA that have continuously proven you wrong, which you chose to ignore, you also chose to see what you want to see in the video as well.

I also think your observational abilities are not nearly as good as you claim. In this short video you have on page 97, as the tether expands and blurs, so do the white dots. Some white dots change at different rates, and some change at the same rates as the tether, which means some are closer, some are farther away, and some are abut the same distance away as the tether.

If these particles were up close to the shuttle, then change of the focus on the tether would have very little effect on the particles, as they would be greatly out of focus the whole time, but because the particles change focus, in sync, although at different rates, it proves that the particles are near the tether.

The fact that you refuse to recognize the evidence from NASA that there would not be so many tiny particle floating around the shuttle the way we see in this tether video continues to demonstrate that you care nothing about the truth.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


When a lens is focused on a very distant object (in this case the tether) you have an area called the depth of field this area is from a certain distance in front of the lens to infinity.
As the point of focus changes SO DOES the range of the depth of field so an object that is say x distance from the camera is now in focus but an object 0.75x will still be out of focus even though they are only a few feet or mtrs apart.

Have a look at this chart for example

www.sigmaphoto.com...(e).pdf

Scroll down to 70mm focal length

If FOCUSED on infinity at f2.8 anything closer than 46.6 mtrs will be out of focus.

Scroll up now to 50mm ie less zoom when focused at infinity and set to f2.8 guess what point of sharp focus is now 26 mtr so anything less than that is out of focus.

At the distance the tether was the lens would be at infinity focus so the out of focus objects MUST BE CLOSE TO THE CAMERA!!!
Also to pre-empt any THATS NOT THE LENS USED comments look at depth of field chart for other lenes they all will tell you the same story!!!
its a property of light and optics !


Now do you get IT

[edit on 25-11-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




So by your logic, the tether is only a few meters from the shuttle as well, because the tether is also out of focus.

Your link didn't work.

Here is a link to a discussion on infinity adjustments for video. The fact of the matter is the situation is nothing like what you describe. For one thing, video is different than a camera.

photo.net...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Poet1b,
you didn't understand optics rules and don't have some experience (no problem)
or
you deliberately dismiss the facts in order to protect your "very distant critters". (problem)

Which one?





[edit on 25/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


You are the one who doesn't seem to understand optics, or video camera focus. I see you didn't bother to follow my link and read the discussion. Your claims continue to far exceed reasonable analysis of the camera effects in this video.

On top of that you continue to ignore the fact that all evidence from the NASA studies point out that we are seeing about twenty times the number of particles around the tether than could reasonably be expected. The fact that you ignore this huge body of evidence clearly demonstrates a lack of ability in analysis in general on your part, as well as everyone who clings to the close particle fantasy in this video.

Your avoidance of discussion on the NASA studies continues to demonstrate a huge blind spot in your reasoning.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You are the one who doesn't seem to understand optics, or video camera focus. I see you didn't bother to follow my link and read the discussion. Your claims continue to far exceed reasonable analysis of the camera effects in this video.


yes, right, i know what hyperfocal distance and depth of field is, and factors influencing it, in fact i explained earlier in this thread how donut-like bokeh is formed from catadioptric lens, and provided links to these concepts regarding optics. How about cat-eye effect which you approved as fact, but didn't explained... (it is a property of bokeh)

Instead, you, are so sure about these optics concepts, like the ice sublimation in space you failed earlier....





[edit on 25/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Remember that camera used to film this STS-75 videos with objects, was identified as being camera C .


Originally posted by depthoffield

i found the exact timing of our misterious movies.

pag 75



TAPE NUMBER: 611854 TITLE: STS-75 Orbit 118, 119 (Downlink Reel # 061)
CAPTION: Night pass starfield views and TSS-1R visible from the orbiter. A/G audio.



or better a capture of it, scroll to the right!:




there is said:

Day 61 (1 march 1996, GMT time)

05:11:50 Camera D WS/ Night pass starfield view.
05:12:40 Camera C WS/ Night pass starfield view. View switches between CAMs D and C giving WS/ Starfield views as the Crew looks for the TSS-1R satellite.
05:22:41 Camera C Orbit 119. WS/ Night pass starfield view. View continues to switch between CAMs D and C.
05:30:05 Camera C CAM repositions. LS/ TSS-1R, with tether extended, visible at 113 nautical miles away from Columbia. Debris visible.
05:31:35 Camera D Glare.
05:31:38 Camera C LS/ TSS-1R. Tether and debris visible. Sunlight illuminates view.
05:32:59 Camera C Zoom in/out. LS/ TSS-1R. Debris visible. Glare develops. Iris down to dark FOV.
05:35:55 Camera D Glare.
05:36:01 Camera C LS/ TSS-1R barely visible in the center of the screen. Glare.
05:38:19 CAM turned off. Black.
05:39:16 Camera A Dark FOV. Port side wing, sunglint and Earth limb visible in the lower FOV.




So, the images are taken with camera C.

which is:



STS-75 ORBITER VIDEO CAMERA IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION

1) Closed Circuit TV Payload Bay Cameras
A - PORT FWD Corner, Wide Angle Color Lens
B - PORT Aft Corner, Wide Angle Color Lens
C - STBD Aft Corner, B & W Lens
D - STBD FWD Corner, B&W Lens





Below, i've tried to do the best match, inserting on the video, the mark times resulted from STS 75 Scene list, quoted above.

All the movie was filmed with camera C, but here were two moments, when the image is switched to camera D for a few seconds, and the image is described as "glare":


05:31:35 camera D Glare.
and
05:35:55 camera D Glare.

there was an EXACT match on the description and what we have, therefore i was able to TIME-MARK the sequence, you can verify for yourself the timings and duration when camera D was used.


Here it is:








Back to our "C" camera, the C - STBD Aft Corner, B & W Lens camera, we have technicall specification in this NASA document:

www.shuttlepresskit.com...



how it looks:



or with pan/tilt unit and protection:




here it is it's location:



or even a picture of it mounted on the shuttle:





And some technical data:






Wow, the same AFT TV camera produced the following bokeh with notches, listen on youtube sequence below, the astronaut informing us what camera was used:



Originally posted by depthoffield
This is taken from STS-6.
During the mission, astronauts are going outside on an EVA. The sequence is filmed, as astronauts themselves said, with the "AFT TV camera" []

Here is the entire sequence narrated by the astronauts:





And here is just the slowed down sequence, showing how iris mechanism of the camera is closing down:




What we see...astronauts trying to get outside, and camera focused on them, on the background of the image. But there is some part of the shuttle or it's structures, can't say for sure what, and this structure is closer to the camera, partially blocking the view. And because is closer, much closer that the near limit of the depth of field interval of the lens, it appears very unfocused, very blurred. On the same time, there are some edges, or snags of that closer structure, which reflects loccally the light (i didn't think the sun light, but some artifical light from the illumination system of the shuttle, i guess). Those reflexions are punctual. But beeing very out of focus, BOKEH acts here. (and remember those cameras have catadioptric lens, so that's why the dark center of the bokeh)


And as you see, there are BOKEH WITH NOTCHES, produced BY NASA SHUTTLE CAMERAS from CLOSER and OUT OF FOCUS points of light !


Maybe you want to see them better, here is one frame:




or maybe even better:




More, we see here the cat-eye effect too!


So what we have here?!

A NASA shuttle camera, showing out of focus closer smaller points of light, as BOKEH, with notches and cat-eye effect.







Back ,
Now, i intend to estimate the numbers for the depth of field of this lens,
having
-Focal length when full or no zoom,
-Diameter of the lens, given the iris
but not having circle of confusion of the senzor (but it can be estimated)


using for example this online depth of field calculator:

www.dofmaster.com...

But this, later.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Actually, no, I don't take my positions on faith alone that I can't possible be wrong, as you and your fellow debunkers seem to consistently do. I look at the facts, and adjust my opinion when the facts demonstrate I am wrong. You need to do the same. The large donut shape with the notch can be seen in very distant objects such as stars, so these large donut shaped images could very well be at a considerable distance. The white dots change in shape roughly the same as the tether, and it doesn't take a deep knowledge of video footage to see this.

While you have presented your theories, you have also consistently over estimated you ability to draw conclusions from that knowledge, and I have provided the evidence that has proven this, which you continue to ignore, along with the evidence that these numbers of particles floating in the tether video have no legitimate possible source. In addition, an understanding of these optical properties is not that complicated. Your attempts to claim that only your side understands these properties is down right arrogant.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Any out of focus bright point can look like that, but to be out of focus while the tether, at a distance that can be considered infinity for camera purposes, was on focus then they must be much closer to the camera than the tether.

If the tether was close to the shuttle then the stars should look out of focus.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 

you continue to ignore, along with the evidence that these numbers of particles floating in the tether video have no legitimate possible source.


Poet I think you're focusing on whether the particles can be there or not, and DOF is focusing on what the video evidence shows.

I think a logical sequence is to first forget about the source, and look at the video. Once an analysis of the video shows the distance of the objects is close and the objects are obviously there, then even if the source is unknown, you have enough information to start looking for a source.

You seem to be concluding that there's no possible source so therefore even if the video shows there are close particles, the video must be wrong due to no source. I'm sure you realize that's not a supportable argument. I don't know the source and neither does DOF per what he has said, all I know is the particles are there and they are not at a distance close to the tether, they are significantly closer.

Perhaps one thing we all agree on is that the source is a mystery until we know what it is, but we may have more information about that soon from the execute package Jim Oberg requested.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join