I'm going to come in on the side of the OP. My qualifications are being a tested genius in spatial perception, having worked extensively with 3D programs, and an awareness that "fisheye" or not, parallax is not minimized by any lens, and that is what is demonstrated by the footage.

That I know that there are plenty of beings abuzz about earth, so I am sure already that the original was a demonstration of some conscious energy manifestation. But if one understands the 3D world, there is no way the relative movement (or lack thereof) in the camera of the objects and the tether can be explained other than by placing many of them very close together.

Let alone the fact that one of the objects passes behind the thether.

But soon the truth will be apon us (an "apocalypse," a revealing...). Really, all those who fall on the side of a "lack of proof" are deliberately grasping at straws to maintain their comfortable paradigm.

That's my take. Your reality may differ.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
You mean the doughnut shape.
That is just caused by a bright light surrounding an electrically energized
craft using a Tesla coil.
Ever see a Tesla coil spark away on youtube videos.
Connected to a metal craft the whole outsides glow with electrified
air.

Please don't drag Tesla into this, he was a great man and had nothing to do with this.
When an object is out of focus you will see camera artifacts, that's why you see the donut shape here, and odd shapes in other UFO videos showing odd shapes of out of focus objects.

The tether is a beam test using the same coils used to fly those
doughnut shaped lights.
It's a refined Ghost missile once tested by Germany along the Baltic.
I have a few atmospheric ones caught on video in my youtube playlist.
Same thing, its been posted on the net.
Why pick this tether video like its something new.
Play with square block and round balls again to generate observability
and out due your local Ufologist.

You have to accept that the flight crew already knew about some debris,they say so.
When the tether snapped there was probably more debris from the recoil,and that debris going into orbit round the tether itself.The seemingly swimming stuff is the most puzzling,it looks organic plankton like,rather than metallic debris tumbling,that has my focus more than anything else.As for the shape of any of the objects,the first views are about as good as it is gonna get, after that the camera is refocused more to the tether and satellite,that's when you get the doughnuts,which look a deal bigger than the original viewed object..so much for size,and i'm sure any light from a reflective substance in space would be out of proportion to its size.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by Amaterasu
... that "fisheye" or not, parallax is not minimized by any lens, and that is what is demonstrated by the footage.

Correct, parallax remains the same however a fish-eye lens will alter apparent trajectory.

... there is no way the relative movement (or lack thereof) in the camera of the objects and the tether can be explained other than by placing many of them very close together.

Clearly, things at different planes of depth move at different rates with respect to the camera (the closer the greater apparent movement). However, much like our eyeballs a lens can gather dust / etc. Put another way, if the "disc / floater" in the STS footage at (1:31 - 1:36) is on or in the lens it would move at the same rate of motion as the camera itself.

The lateral momentum can be thought of like a speck of dust on the cornea or floaters in the vitreous material that make up the eyeball.

Let alone the fact that one of the objects passes behind the tether

If the floater is semi-translucent (which it appears to be) a brighter opaque object from behind would occult it.

Either way it's hard to say whether this is an extreme foreground object that's, for the most part, transparent except when cast against the blackness of space or if it's instead a huge disc.

However since it looks like a dust-mote. I'm willing to say it's likely space debris or optical artifacts.

Your reality may differ.

I'll admit David Sereda's attempt to explain the STS footage has somewhat biased me against accepting anything he's put forward. He made a number of mistakes, particularly the 90 degree left turn & his failure to consider retrograde motion. More specifically not paying attention to the fact that the object moved rapidly to the left because the camera was relocating as evidenced by the Earth seen spinning fast to the right.

I just wish there was additional footage. Then we'd be able to say what's-what based on triangulation / stereoscopic depth.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by SaturnFX

and yet you failed to realize the issue involved here.

distance.
the second video I posted, the guy doing the 3d example (which can be replicated with a real cam) shows how the camera movement would have had the swimmers moving in a different speed than the tether.

The guy holds fishing line up next to the camera to demo how it looks like its behind...but did he move the cam the way the tether vids moved?
no
therefore, invalid test then considering he didnt replicate the conditions and evidence of the video.

Hang on. Are you saying that even though it doesn't matter what object you overexpose, it still takes on the form of a pulsating donut shape. That is not enough to convince you?

Overexposed objects appear as pulsating donuts, the very objects which are all over the tether video. Are you saying that is merely coincidence that they look exactly the same as the "organic ufos" ?

Edit: Oh I see, you're the thread OP. No wonder you're defending this story to the death.

To be honest the tether incident was very interesting to me. I watched David Sereda's hour long video and I was very convinced by his arguments. Especially on the the tether incident. But after seeing overexposure properly explained that really killed it for me.

Sereda attempted to disprove the overexposure explanation, unsuccessfully. But I bought it. Just goes to show you, that if someone speaks their theorycraft well enough, it's very easy to swallow.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

Just my 2 cents....
As an aerospce and mechanical engineer with a degree in physics....

Basic Newtonian Law..."An object in motion tends to stay in motion", I.E.,
" Unless an known force is acted upon an object to deflect it's path, I.E.,
being hit or gravitational forces, It will forever travel a straight line". Einstein calculated the curvature of space and stated "If you threw a ball in space, in and in infinate time it will come back to the exact place it was thrown from".

That being silly in this case and because none of the objects intersect on any level, all the objects should only ever travel perfect straight lines. PERIOD!

I have analysed the raw video an also added the trails of the objects just like the last video did.

Conclusion:
The objects in the last video that absolutely have direction change ARE controlled objects. No object that is uncontrolled can ever create an arc shaped turn without guidance. This is against the laws of physics. Especially turning exactly 160 degrees like 2 of the objects clearly did with proof in the video. If an object in space is deflected by another object it will sharply change direction and travel in another straight line. These objects on the other hand are not big enough to be influenced by earths gravity from the abrupt direction changes. REMEMBER FOLKS, evreything at that altitude is travelling at just under escape velocity. Any change in direction could not be noticed by the human eye. Gravitational forces would bring them into an ever degrading orbit until atmosphric entry unless the approach angle is greater than the tangent angle of orbit by more that about 10 degrees.
Some of the objects are definately meteorites and the earth recieves about 14 tons of stellar dirt in one day but these are clearly on a direct path into the atmosphere passing in a straight line like a bullet.

The shuttle can:

Alter it's forward course

Change altitude in it's forward course

Roll over in it's forward course.

Turn 180 degrees in rotation in it's forward course. (travel backwards)

Or any combination in it's forward course.

The shuttle or OUR technology could never reverse direction of orbit without catastrophic consequences. PERIOD.

Just my 2 cents as someone who knows something......

[edit on 3-7-2009 by skiered]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by skiered]

referring this over to the main thread...its pretty massive now, but hopefully the new stuff will be added somewhere in there and people will come across it.