Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Analysis of the STS-75 Tether Incident -2010 (my research)

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Almost everybody which studied a bit the ufology field, encountered the STS-75 tether incident, when tens if not hundreds of alleged UFOs where caught by the NASA camera when filming the distant tether. Many people think of this as one of the best video from NASA with strange UFO's..some kind of a "smoking gun".....following their own wonderings when looking of the strangeness of the objects - shape or movement - or swallowing the cool stories promoted by the story-tellers .... David Sereda and others promoted this as evidence for big alien ships (2..3 miles in size), while others think of those objects/discs as some not-discovered yet exotic plasma life forms in space...
In the mean time, a great and long discussion about this incident, the "New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident" topic, starting with some video analysis made by LunaCognita and containing a long debate with great findings, was finnally moved from Alliens and UFOs forum and "buried" in the Skunkworks forum, for some obscure real reason.... Here is that topic: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Back to STS-75 video...
Here is one version, well known from Secretnasaman archives, the "uncut" version:




and here, a copy of it, but with time marks overlayed by me, correlation made when studying the NASA Scene-list of the mission:




Here, a copy of Davis Sereda documentary "Evidence - The case for NASA UFO's", using the same video as source for his analysis: video.google.com...

But i know, everybody must saw these sequences before ...



Now, to the point...


Do you want to know how distant were some of this objects? Clear values?

For example all of these objects, orbs, discs:





Well, all of these moving objects are only at 9 to 30 meters away from camera! NEAR THE SHUTTLE!

This finding contradicts all the claims which put those objects at very big distances, near or even behind the tether (about maybe 100 miles away at that moment), and of course, can have the "bad looking" potential to those promoting the ALIEN/critter hypothesys regarding this STS-75 incident.

But, from where it result that these objects are only at 9 to 30 meters away, and not very distant like many "ufo researchers" sayd? It only looks like a bold and crazy claim from me, an obscure person.

Well, read bellow.




I promised a time ago, about some calculus, even distance to the "UFO's", which in that buried topic where determined to be CLOSE enough to be out of focus (BOKEH) when the lens is focused on infinite (on the tether + stars).


First, I identified the camera which took the STS-75 videos, it is "CAMERA C":



Originally posted by depthoffield
our "C" camera, the C - STBD Aft Corner, B & W Lens camera, we have technicall specification in this NASA document:

www.shuttlepresskit.com...

{}

And some technical data:





details in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now, i have the focal length of the NASA camera when at full zoom, 108 mm, and the angle representing field of view again at the full zoom which is 6.6 degree.

The senzor is a rectangle, and we want to know the dimensions, in order to measure the bokeh real size.

simple geometric formula:

horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x focal_length x tan (fov_horizontal/2)
or
horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x 108 x tan (6.6/2) = 12.45 mm

horizontal_senzor_size ~12.5 mm ( ~ 1/2 inch)


Next, what is the resolution of the NASA camera? Well, this is not clearly described, but this camera produce a TV signal.
While the resolution of the TV signal could be 768 x 576 (interlaced frames), what we have here, the youtube versions, are only 320 x 240 pixels.

So we see only a video like the NASA cameras had only 320 x 240 pixels resolution (but even more degraded in quality due to some youtube compression).

Understanding this setting, those 12.5 mm of the senzor in horizontal direction, are covered by those 320 pixels. We will need later this information.



Now, let's make a simple estimation of the hyperfocal distance of the NASA camera C which took these videos, based on determination of the circle of confusion.


First, in order to make a comparison, i made a calculus related to my camera, Canon S2 IS, a 5 Mpixel sensor (2592 H x 1944 V) having a 1/2.5 inch diagonal senzor.

This diagonal 1/2.5 inch means a horizontal size of 7.6 mm.
These 7.6 mm contains those 2592 pixels.

Therefore, we can calculate the distance between two adjacent pixels in this Canon camera, which result about 0.0029 mm


According to this online DOF calculator, www.dofmaster.com...




we see that the circle of confusion for Canon S2 IS camera is considered to be 0.005 mm.

So, they set the circle of confusion (limit of sharpness) as being about two times the distance between pixels (a little less).

Note:
Circle of confusion is a number representing the diameter of a enough small bokeh disc produced by the lens in out of focus situation, in order to be accepted as a point instead of a disc (circle) in the final image, giving the impression of sharp focus. Theoretical, depth of field should not exist, but only a single plan of sharp focus, but given the limited resolution of the senzor capturing the image, and also the nature of how lens produce the image, there is an interval (depth of field) where the lens produce bokeh smaller or equal to the circle of confusion, therefore not detected by the senzor.


To calculate a camera's depth of field (“DoF”), one needs to know how large a circle of confusion can be considered to be an acceptable focus. The maximum acceptable diameter of such a circle of confusion is known as the maximum permissible circle of confusion, the circle of confusion diameter limit, or the circle of confusion criterion, but is often informally called simply the circle of confusion.


source: en.wikipedia.org...






Back to NASA camera C:


As i previously said, We know the horizontal size of NASA's CAMERA C senzor which is ~12.5 mm ( ~ 1/2 inch), and we have 320 pixels covering this.


Therefore, we can calculate the distance between two adjacent pixels in this NASA camera, which means about 0.039 mm

Taking in consideration the same level of the circle of confusion as being about twice the distance between the pixels (a little less), we have
NASA camera circle of confusion ~ 0.07mm


Feeding this data into the online DOF calculator, we obtain the hyperfocal distance of the NASA camera C:




Hyperfocal distance for this NASA camera is 105 meters !

So, we already have one value which greatly clarify the situation here!

When this NASA camera is focused to infinite, at maximum zoom, all the objects further from 105 meters will be in focus (here the stars and the tether). But, our objects which we clearly see they are out of focus (producing bokeh discs) must be close than 105 meters!!!

This is first approach to the reality of the distance to the unfocused objects. But we can do further measurements and calculus, to further determine the distance to the "ufo's".

...next...

____
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Try refresh.


[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]




posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
..continued:

As someone may know, i identified the stars seen in the image..Centaur Constellation (using "Stellarium" free software). This allowed me to know which is a star, and which an object, also allowed me to make some measurements. In one future post, i may go into details regarding this.

Now, back to the focus maneuveur, when NASA camera is focused to closer distance for a second or so, the subject to this analysis:


At 19 sec mark on the youtube sequence (www.youtube.com...), the operators of the camera, somehow feel that the camera is not well focused, because judging the thickness of the tether on the image they see on the monitors (actually the thickness is a image artefact of the senzor or recording device used, not a property of the tether itself), so they decide to check the focus, maybe they can aquire a better focus..this is a natural action when using a lens (amateurs may not feel this need, since ussually they have automatic focusing camera and don't care a bit about technical stuff...but in the land of manual adjusting, this checking of focus is just natural). So the operators, briefly adjust the focus. They move the focus plane closer (can't move further than infinite, since infinite is the limit) to the camera for a few moments.

The phenomenon itself, extracted:




We can see how the tether briefly grows in thickness as a result of out of focus state.

Also, all the stars goes out of focus and almost all fade and then dissapear during the focusing maneuver.

But we can see also, in the same time, that many "orbs" there, actually shrinks down and raise their brightness and many of them became extremely sharp, points of light, well focused bright points of light. Look below:



Let's identify the "objects" and their behavior before, during and after the focusing maneuver, also i named the stars:

GIF animation:


(a more slowed version is this: files.abovetopsecret.com... )


or, another version, which shows the forward - reverse motion of the focusing maneuver, to even better see the shape of the objects in relation with the focusing maneuver dinamics:

GIF animation:


(a more slowed version is this: files.abovetopsecret.com... )


And next, 3 frames:

frame1, when the lens was focused on infinite, before the focusing maneuver, stars visible:




frame15, when the lens is focused at closest distance, stars not visible:




frame27, when the lens was focused again on infinite, after the focusing maneuver, stars visible:






Facts:
1) We can see how the tether briefly grows in thickness as a result of out of focus state, during the focus maneuver.The greatest thickness is on frame 15, when the lens is maximum unfocused from infinite (closest focus)

2) ALL the stars (which now are identified) in the image are in focus before and after the focusing maneuver, when the lens is focused to infinite, because we see all of them as points. (for example frame1, frame 27, and of course outside this interval)
ALL the stars in the image lose focus, almost or fully dissapearing when focus is changed to closer. Exception the brightest star HIP67819A, which because its brightness still is seen as a faint DISC (bokeh), sign of out of focus status. The other stars, while logically are also faint discs, are not seen anymore, being too faint for this poor image to show them anymore (i expect some of them to be seen in the original better images). NAMED FACT: the stars goes out of focus during focusing maneuver.
Look for frame15, when lens is in closest focus, stars are not visible anymore (except HIP67819A)

3) MOST if not ALL of the "UFO's" gain more or less in focus during the focusing maneuver, let's see:





Well, every photographer and optics specialist recognize this "shrinking" shape of the discs, together with increasing brightness, and even transforming in sharpest points for many objects there, as a result of those objects acquiring FOCUS in those moments (for the others, amateurs...well...is a matter of experience). Simply, basic laws of optics, tell there is not any posibility that when an object is more defocused, the object to shrink and become more bright. No, shrinking and gaining brightness or becoming a bright point, is a property of a increasing in focusing.

Now, as the camera focuses closer, and many "critters", or "alien ships" became more or even best focused in exactly that moments... What that it means? It means that those objects aquiring sharpness and getting good focus, INDEED ARE CLOSER TO THE CAMERA, and when the lens is focused on the tether (=infinite), those discs are out of focus images of the same closer objects! Essentially the continous focus changing from infinite to closer and back to infinite really describe a good 3D depth perception of the space near the camera. You can get the same when changing focus when filmimg how snow flakes are falling in front of your camera on winter (i can't do it right now, but it is a simple experiment)

..next..




___________
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Please refresh your browser if animations are not complete



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
...continued:


I have two versions of these STS-75 videos:

-one from the documentary "Evidence - the case for NASA UFO's" by David Sereda, which i founded on the internet maybe two year or more ago, i don't remember exactly from what source (youtube or google video), but it was in 10 parts or something like that.
This movie was the source of my analysis here in this topic, because i find it to be cleaner and better in some aspects (contrast,gamma).

-second from the Secretnasaman's youtube chanel, this uncut version: www.youtube.com...





THE PROCEDURE OF CALCULATING DISTANCE TO THE OBJECTS:



As i showed, the frame 15 is the frame when the camera is focused closer (or maximum unfocused away from infinite)

GIF animation:


I will measure the size of the bokeh disc made by the star HIP67819A when lens is at closest focus, at frame 15.
For this i will draw a yellow circle having the size which i find best to be accurate, and i will do this for the two versions of the sequence, maybe it will be easy to see.


First, Sereda's documentary version:



And second, the Secretnasaman uncut version:



As i said, the yellow disc is my best aproximation of the size of the star's bokeh when the lens is focused closer.

This yellow disc have 9 pixels in size.

While the whole frame have 320 pixels, and the nasa senzor measure 12.5 mm, it means that the yellow disc (and star's bokeh) has the following absolute size:

star's_bokeh = 12.5 x 9/320 = 0.35 mm



next, i'll use the formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...
someone must read carrefully the explanations and figures to understand better.





And for the blur of an object at infinity when the focus distance is finite:





where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor (now calculated to be 0.35 mm for the star named HIP67819A at frame 15)
f = focal length of the lens (NASA camera = 108 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (NASA camera = 1.6 )
S1 = distance where the lens is focused (our unknown we want to be determined)

Therefore our S1 distance will be:

S1 = f + f*f/(c*N) = 20.8 meters ~ 21 meters


So, WHEN WE HAVE CLOSEST FOCUS (FRAME 15), THE LENS IS FOCUSED AT 21 METERS !!


Which means that the following objects named 4,5,8,A,B are situated at this distance 21 meters (or near this, within depth of field) away from the lens, NEAR THE SHUTTLE.

If we want to estimate the depth of field of the lens when focused at 21 meters, and knowing the NASA's camera's circle of confusion (0.07 mm) let's feed the data into the DOF calculator:




We see, actually, the objects 4,5,8,A,B could be anywhere between 17.5 and 26.2 meters away from the shuttle, while the lens is focused at 21 meters, in order to appear as well as focused points in the image (at frame 15) like we see them.


As for the other objects, 1,2,3,6,7,9,C,D,E,F, not one of them could be further away greater than 26.2 meters, simply because during the focusing maneuver we don't see them in focus not even one frame (while the focus goes continuously from infinite down to 21 meters, "testing for focus" this interval, all the objects gain their minimum size exactly at frame15 => 21 meters distance). Logically, these other out of focus objects must be even closer than 17.5 meter in order to maintain the out of focus appearance, despite lens focused at 21 meters. Simple said, not one single object seen in this particular images, is further away than 26.2 meters!!!
(of course, debris further away can exist very well, but it seems they are inexistent or too small and too faint to be seen by the NASA camera anymore, at least in this representative frames)


If these other objects are closer than 17.5 meters, ...how close?

Let's find out!




For object "9", i'll measure the size of it's bokeh disc, when the lens is focused at infinite, frame 2





which is 17 pixels

While the whole frame have 320 pixels, and the nasa senzor measure 12.5 mm, it means that the orange disc (and object "9" bokeh) has the following absolute size:

object_9_bokeh = 12.5 x 17/320 = 0.66 mm



next, i'll use the proper formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...




For infinite focus distance:





where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor (now measured to be 0.66 mm for the object "9" at frame 2)
f = focal length of the lens (NASA camera = 108 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (NASA camera = 1.6 )
S2 = distance to the object (our unknown we want to be determined)

Therefore our S2 distance will be:

S2 = f*f/(c*N) = 11 meters

So, the object "9" is situated at 11 meters away from NASA camera, closer than the hyperfocal distance (105 meters), and even closer than the 17.5 meter near limit when the lens is focused closest, that's why, while it's size is reduced at frame 15 (lens focus = 21 meters) compared to frame 2 (lens focus = infinite), it is still out of focus!



The same calculus goes for object named "E", which has a even greater bokeh disc at frame26, when lens is again focused to infinite:





which is 21 pixels

While the whole frame have 320 pixels, and the nasa senzor measure 12.5 mm, it means that the pink disc (and object "E" bokeh) has the following absolute size:

object_9_bokeh = 12.5 x 21/320 = 0.82 mm



next, i'll use the proper formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...




For infinite focus distance:





where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor (now measured to be 0.82 mm for the object "E" at frame 26)
f = focal length of the lens (NASA camera = 108 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (NASA camera = 1.6 )
S2 = distance to the object (our unknown we want to be determined)

Therefore our S2 distance will be:

S2 = f*f/(c*N) = 8.9 meters

So, the object "E" is situated at 8.9 meters away from NASA camera, much closer than the hyperfocal distance (105 meters), and even closer than the 17.5 meter near limit, that's why, while it's size is reduced at frame 15 (lens focus = 21 meters) compared to frame 26 (lens focus = infinite), it is still out of focus!


Now is pretty clear that those big discs, in fact bokeh, are made by something small and near the shuttle (debris particles?) which are placed 9 to 30 meters (within measurements errors) away, and follow the shuttle in it's major orbital path.
Who says about some big fat distant away UFO's ? "Scientists"??


..next..



___________
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Please refresh your browser if animations are not complete



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
..continued:

Someone may dont't believe in the accuracy of the bokeh formulas. Therefore, i put them to another test, this time with my own camera, a Canon S2IS model, following absolutely the same procedure as above.

I used a small pin with a round head. The head have about 1 milimeter in diameter. I iluminated the pin with a flash light. The pin is fixed at about 1.5 meters away from the camera (a gross visual estimate), on the edge of the _ The camera is mounted on a tripod, and is looking toward the window (in the kitchen, but now an instant laboratory for some "brainiac" activity
). Outside, is the night sky, and the bright star Sirius as my collaborator.

Here is the setup:




The camera Canon S2IS is a 5 Megapixel camera, with 640x480 pixels @30 fps progresive video capability. Can zoom during the shooting, and can manually control the focus during the shooting.
The zoom lens is 6mm to 72 mm focal length, providing 1 to 12 x optical zoom. The maximum aperture is F = 2.7--3.5 (3.5 at 12x zoom setting). The senzor is type 1/2.5” CCD . More details: www.dpreview.com...

This diagonal 1/2.5 inch means a horizontal size = 7.6 mm of my camera senzor.


Here is the video with the result of experiment:




Here just a GIF animation showing the focusing maneuveur: files.abovetopsecret.com...

and for convenience, a long time exposure photo to see better the view of the camera on the sky (when unzoomed): files.abovetopsecret.com...


The bright point is the star Sirius (brightnest star on the sky), and the lens is at full zoom, 12 x, focused on infinite, that's why the star appears as point in proper focus, but the pin head appear as a big orb, bokeh. Later, when focusing on the pin, but maintaining the 12 x zoom seting, we see that the pin head come in focus as a small point, while the star Sirius became a big orb (also very faint). Later, when i zoomed out, we see the whole frame. Also, we see reflections of the pin on the window, but ignore them.

Now, the measurement of the bokeh:



The bokeh disc from the pin head, is about 73 pixels.
As i said, the senzor diagonal 1/2.5 inch means a horizontal size of 7.6 mm of my camera senzor. When making movies, with 640 x 480 pixels, those 640 pixels cover the 7.6 mm in horizontal dimension.
Therefore, we can determine the real size of the bokeh disc:

c = 7.6 x 73 / 640 = 0.87 mm

back to bokeh formula:



For infinite focus distance:





where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor (now measured to be 0.87 mm for the pin head bokeh)
f = focal length of the lens (12x zoom means = 72 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (Canon S2 camera = 3.5 )
S2 = distance to the pin head (our unknown we want to be determined)

Therefore our S2 distance will be:

S2 = f*f/(c*N) = 1.7 meters


After the experiment, almost to forget, i measured the distance with a ruler... the result from the lens to the pin was about 1.65 meters or so...

The error of the method is less than 3% given the errors....showing the fairness of the bokeh formulas.

--------------








Back to NASA bokeh STS-75 video analysed, recapitulation:

- The lens is first focused to infinite, and during the focusing maneuver goes to focus at 21 meters, then back to infinite
- All the objects are closer at least than 105 meters, and further analysis shows that there are no objects beyound 26.2 meters in this particular time interval!
- There are some objects which are situated at the interval 17.5 to 26.2 meters
- there are some objects closer than 17.5 meters


While the calculus is of course subject to approximations and measurements errors, the final conclusion is this:

in the tether sequence which shows the focusing maneuver, ALL THE OBJECTS ARE CLOSE TO THE SHUTTLE, ONLY METERS AND TENS OF METERS AWAY, and THERE IS NO OBJECT NEAR THE TETHER (>70 miles distant)

Only one relevant second from the movie (focusing maneuver), and a bit of knowledge of how optics works, was enough to estimate the distance to some representative objects... THE OBJECTS ARE CLOSE TO THE SHUTTLE!


No, wait.... the believers lawyers will send you, the reader, to bypass any explanation and only look to the beauty of the movie, which shows the "UFO's behind the tether" or other "alien" properties. You have two options: use your mind or accept the entertainment. There is a great market hungry for entertainment, so, that's why the need to feed it done by some people.




___________
note: in this post are some GIF animations, a little bigger files, which can take some time to load in your browser (or load partially). Please refresh your browser if animations are not complete



[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




your wasting everyone's time if you don't have NASA's copy of the video !







"buried" in the Skunkworks forum, for some obscure real reason


i made it very clear why the thread was moved so please wake up , stop dreaming and stop spreading lies
















i wonder if the STS80 UFO's are the same as the STS75 objects ?


[edit on 26-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
wow, how fast you read this detailed analysis. 6 minutes. wow.
We all know your oficial opinion regarding the movement of that thread.



[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
wow, how fast you read this detailed analysis. 6 minutes. wow.
We all know your oficial opinion regarding the movement of that thread.
[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]



i see NO REASON to read the same exact WEAK evidence you have already posted in my thread !


How Many Times Do You Expect All Of Us To Read The Same Thing Over And Over ??



you keep forgetting that until you have NASA's copy of the video EVERYTHING you posted is all just proclamations , guesses and conjecture based opinions and offers us NO REAL facts !

easier to just ignore that isn't it ?





and if you know my official opinion regarding the moving of that thread then why do you continue to have delusions of grandeur about it ?


[edit on 26-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if you know my official opinion regarding the movement of thead then why do you continue to have delusions of grandeur about it ?


well, we are on a conspiracy place, and your oficiall explanation doesn't value a bit.. you know, facts reveals the motifs.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

doesn't value a bit

what does that mean ?





facts reveals motives

yes and the fact that you couldn't continue posting in the other thread just because it got moved AND used the same title for this one is VERY revealing of your
motives !






object does a 180




intentional obfuscation ?


[edit on 26-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Great post! Judging by the layout, calculations and your own experimental research it must have taken close to a month to compile all this information.

Sorry I didn't feel the need to verify your calculations (I also presumed that there would be other people just aching to verify them), But I'm ok with getting the jest of your theory.

I did however instantly think of the "object flight path" video that was posted right after your OP. What is your theory behind the multiple directional changes of some of these objects?







[edit on 26-1-2010 by FORMe2p00p0n]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Please...you two need to take this to the u2u - otherwise you are both wasting our time with watered down attacks.





DOTF:

Awesome thread man...lots of technical-nese (most understandable to a layman such as myself) and actual attempts to duplicate it - far better than most, on either side of the fence...





With that said - it still feels (yes, it's subjective, I know) as if the 'objects' on that tape are intelligently controlled. And not by thruster emissions if you were gonna throw that back at me...and of course not all of them perform in the same way.


I know this is a 'weak' assumption, but nothing about those objects seems to indicate that they are only particles getting thrown around...the lines they traverse (particle or craft/critter) seem to demonstrate 'controlled' movement.


With that said, I just want to point out that my post is nothing more than an opinion - purely qualitative...you on the other hand are being objective, as usual.


Great thread man...





posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Looks like you put a lot of work into this, so thanks for that.

depthoffield, the size and shape of the objects isn't really what makes people think they are E.Ts, it is the fact that they don't move like inanimate objects. How do you explain their changes in direction? I suppose that being as close to the shuttle as you suggest would allow for the possibility that they are being affected by the shuttles thrusters.

And easynow, are you suggesting that the videos that he has provided here are not actually of the STS 75 mission? That because they are on youtube and not nasa.gov you think they are fake? Is that what you mean when you say, "until you have NASA's copy of the video it's all guesses and conjecture based opinions and no facts?"



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
DoF, thanks for the restart! I've been pestering the JSC PAO for the day-of-event particle-generation events for more than a month and will escalate to FOIA shortly if we get no satisfaction from him.

Recall that earlier comments were based on a draft scene list which had the day of the event off by 1.

Still, I'm the one on the hook for delivering that promised data.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by happygolucky
 



Please...you two need to take this to the u2u - otherwise you are both wasting our time with watered down attacks.

depthoffield insinuated in the opening post of this thread that there was some secret ulterior reason my thread was moved and i have every right to respond to that.








reply to post by OnceReturned
 



And easynow, are you suggesting that the videos that he has provided here are not actually of the STS 75 mission?

no ... but it's not impossible that the video has been edited or altered before it was intercepted and recorded by Martyn Stubbs (secretnasaman)



That because they are on youtube and not nasa.gov you think they are fake?

maybe ?





Is that what you mean when you say, "until you have NASA's copy of the video it's all guesses and conjecture based opinions and no facts?"

IMO we need NASA's copy of the video for a few different reasons...

1-the youtube copy is compressed and distorted and the raw video file from NASA is needed to conduct a REAL forensic examination.

whenever someone presents a picture or video of a ufo as proof in this forum the first thing everyone screams for is the original raw data and if you don't have it then it's not proof of anything but when it comes to debunking them, all of a sudden the game is changed and we don't need the raw data anymore !










2-having NASA's copy of it would hopefully show us wether or not the video has been altered in any way. we could then match them up and look for any differences.


3-another reason is Zorgon has supposedly discovered that there was another tether up there at the same time so how do we know for sure which one we are looking at in the youtube video ?



But there was another tether in the sky... it was there just after STS 75 returned home... and it was up there for a long time... Tracking this thing down has lead me down a path that quite frankly frightens me... the sheer scope of this and the implications...

Here is one picture of the tether taken from a ground station at Kirtland AFB... I picked this one as it also has a 'visitor' in it
You will note that t is day 137. It is not attached to the shuttle... it doesn't need to be....


www.abovetopsecret.com...






until we see the raw video file from NASA, i won't be able to come to any final conclusions about it and in my opinion , nobody else should either. Jim Oberg said he has NASA's copy of it but he REFUSES to upload it and share the file with everyone. i wonder why ?






@anyone......

if NASA's copy of the video shows up , please somebody send me a U2U message because i won't be following this thread since it's a waste of time to examine this case without it.
i also don't enjoy watching skeptics and debunkers who have never seen a UFO, discussing this and using corrupted evidence to further convince themselves and each other that there's nothing to see here !








[edit on 27-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 
Hiya DoF. Good idea to put all your work onto one thread. A lot of it has been posted on the half dozen good STS-75 threads. A couple of the threads have been amongst the best on ATS (yeah I've a lot in the archives too). They were great discussions/ bar room brawls!

I came to the conclusion they weren't 'aliens' on the 3rd time of watching the secretnasaman vid a few years ago.

1st time I was in awe. OMG is it aliens?!

2nd time (moments later)...hmmmmm they don't move like intelligent life. Hmmmmm they don't move like ANY life.

3rd time I guessed it was particles, debris, ice...inanimate unknowns in eccentric orbits around the shuttle. What other conclusion was there?

Taking part in, and reading the threads added conviction to the conclusion. Your work in those threads has been great. So was RFBurns, Zorgs, Armap, Internos, Phage etc. Critters! Discs! Plasma critters! All the explanations were interesting to read.

S&F...could this thread be Round 6?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Well, if someone wonder about curved trajectories of some innanimate debris...


two examples:


examples with debris with curved trajectories:

one short example, with debris having curved trajectories, appearing to go up and then down in image, some going to the left, some going to the right, criss-crossing the field of view and not going in the same direction:



let's say these are "crazy debris"




another example:



and a stack of relevant frames, in order to show the trajectories of those ice debris:




While "curved trajectory" seems something "intelligent controlled", in fact, is a common property in proper situations.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
DoF, thanks for the restart! I've been pestering the JSC PAO for the day-of-event particle-generation events for more than a month and will escalate to FOIA shortly if we get no satisfaction from him.

Recall that earlier comments were based on a draft scene list which had the day of the event off by 1.


Yes, i'm glad to help to continue a good research.
We need the proper (temporal) NASA documents, regarding water/waste dumps or whatever, at the time of these famous video, as a posible explanation of the composition and source of these closer particles of debris seen on the video. And you have the potential to find them. Wainting for them from last year



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
This may seem absurd and irrelevant, but on one of the mission load screens for Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare, was a NASA clip of the "sand-dollar" looking UFOs flying by, in monochromatic blue. I don't remember which level it was, but it made me wonder why they chose to put that clip in the background of a load screen..



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FORMe2p00p0n
I did however instantly think of the "object flight path" video that was posted right after your OP. What is your theory behind the multiple directional changes of some of these objects?




Originally posted by happygolucky
With that said - it still feels (yes, it's subjective, I know) as if the 'objects' on that tape are intelligently controlled. And not by thruster emissions if you were gonna throw that back at me...and of course not all of them perform in the same way.

I know this is a 'weak' assumption, but nothing about those objects seems to indicate that they are only particles getting thrown around...the lines they traverse (particle or craft/critter) seem to demonstrate 'controlled' movement.


Thank you, both.

Well, i explained this before. I will repost it.
While curved trajectories is normal in proper conditions (see previous posts), the mistery comes from the sudden change in direction of some objects.

Here is the explanation:



the video made by LunaCognita:






What we see here is that many of those objects have curved trajectories. I showed before that debris in space could show curved trajectories. This is a real posibility for inanimate particles in orbit. Remember what we see there is not exactly their curved trajectory in 3D, but only a projection in 2D of the trajectories relative to the point of view, as seen by the camera. If a curved trajectory is seen almost in its plane, it could appear that the object decelerate, stop, and then accelerate in oposite direction. Spatial perspective if you can handle it.


Also, as this good analysis shows, some of them change their curved or straight trajectories in a subtle but strange manner, apparently imposible for some inanimate particles of debris, suggesting "intelligent control of their motion"


Studying more those strange "maneuveurs", i propose one animation taken from one stable sequence of LunarCognita.


I've marked on the sequence, 5 moments in time when there are discernable those misterious maneuvers.
These moments, called by me "changes", are marked by me with colors and numbers, in order:

CHANGE1 red
CHANGE2 green
CHANGE3 blue
[color=Gray]CHANGE4 gray
CHANGE5 yellow


Also, when one namely change appears, i'll marked on the frame the position of all objects of which i can detect some changes in motion, using the corresponding colour of that namely change.

Here is the animation:





What we see here?

That it happens that all the "misterious" maneuvers of the objects are taking place in the same time, the moment of the "change"!
More, we can see that different objects with the same speed and appearance, appear to do exactly the same kind of motion/speed change (maneuver), for example those 3 bright objects in the bottom left corner.


What does this means?

It means two posibilities:

a) the objects make real maneuvers, in sincron, so they show inteligence and connections between them

b) the maneuvers of the objects are not real, but the camera together with the shuttle itself make small maneuvers, because of the Reaction control system of the shuttle in action (en.wikipedia.org...), when finely and with precission make small adjustements in the shuttle attitude or motion vector as part of it's flight in orbit.

If we look with attention, we can see clearly that even the stars themselves, those apparently imobile bright or dimmer points of light, appear to do some kind of small maneuveurs, exactly at the precise moments ("changes") marked by me! Clear evidence for shuttle maneuvers!!!

This really rules out the "inteligence" factor needed to explain the "misterious maneuvers of the objects!

The sudden changes in their curved trajectories are a result of camera/shuttle making small angular attitude adjustements. At least is a logical and easy explanation..no need for "inteligently controlled".






[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
ok math looks good and all, I understand the curve trajectory of ice particles and all but the question I have is for the repetative debris around the tether. Now we can argue that most is just reflections on the lenses, and window of the shuttle. okay fine, but this repetative debris, why does it have a spiral light pattern? all of it? does NASA/Astronaught litter userp solar power? If so, and do note Im not insinuating throwing quartz crystals at it and painging them green. If these debis and particles are solar powered, why are we throwing them away, instead of recycling them?





new topics




 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join