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.
Originally posted by nablator
Originally posted by depthoffield
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
[]
The typical sensor width is 5.76 mm on a 1/2.5" sensor, not 12.5 mm.
[]
Originally posted by mcrom901
in the meantime.... i find it strange nothing was mentioned about these 'debris' in the actual technical reports.......
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by depthoffield
But the scene list, along with astronauts in the movie (described at 5:32:55 GMT: "there is a bit of debris flying with us, illuminated by the sun" ) describe exactly the debris:
Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg
good news for you........
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg
good news for you........
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by depthoffield
In fact, not only that those disk has cat-eye obedience, but every one which goes further away from the center of the frame. Another obedience to the shape of the alleged UFOs related to the lens? Why? Because THEY ARE BOKEH !!
And because they are bokeh, that's why we could do mathematics and discover the distance to the particles generating the bokeh-discs...which was the basis for the opening posts of this thread.
One thing that this calculator demonstrates, and it's a point that people often fail to realize, is that depth of field and background blur are not the same thing and indeed may not even be closely related. People think that a lens setting with a small depth of field will blur the background more, but that isn't necessarily true. The math is quite different in the two cases. Depth of field will give you an estimate of local blurring about a subject in focus, i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the traditional "depth of field" limits. However that doesn't correlate with how blurred the image will be of objects at a significant distance behind the subject in focus.
The "UFO's seen in STS-75 videos, are NOT big distant alien ships or critters, but determined to be something close to the shuttle (meters/tens of meters away) and following it... DEBRIS generated by the shuttle usually do this, and DEBRIS are described by the astronauts and by NASA Scene list.
Originally posted by mcrom901
hello... BOKEH IS A BLURRED SOURCE OF LIGHT i.e. NOT = DEBRIS...
sorry.... but all those assumptions + details from your canon camera do not have any basis in reality as far as sub footage is concerned.....
One thing that this calculator demonstrates, and it's a point that people often fail to realize, is that depth of field and background blur are not the same thing and indeed may not even be closely related. People think that a lens setting with a small depth of field will blur the background more, but that isn't necessarily true. The math is quite different in the two cases. Depth of field will give you an estimate of local blurring about a subject in focus, i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the traditional "depth of field" limits. However that doesn't correlate with how blurred the image will be of objects at a significant distance behind the subject in focus.
www.bobatkins.com...
so..... do you have ALL the EXACT values?
Originally posted by depthoffield
A short check with this program, CONFIRMS my calculations:
*snip*
I put the distance to the minimum focus (subject) distance of NASA camera during focus maneuver, as the one calculated by me,
20.8 meters ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )
other values:
focal length =108 mm
aperture = 1.6
circle of confusion 0.07 mm, as determined by me
Originally posted by depthoffield
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.
Originally posted by mcrom901
it seems you did not comprehend as to what i meant by saying "ALL the EXACT values"......
Originally posted by mcrom901
and how were those values DETERMINED........
Originally posted by depthoffield
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:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7fcd6c6efeb4.jpg[/atsimg]
where
c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor
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)
Originally posted by depthoffield
i'll use the proper formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...
For infinite focus distance:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a27a01e8dbed.jpg[/atsimg]
where
c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor
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)
Originally posted by mcrom901
just to reiterate......
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by depthoffield
The precise time of the debris (oh, "UFO's) can be seen here:
*snip*
It is MET day 07 about 9:12 ....or in GMT style, it is day 061 about 5:30.
Originally posted by depthoffield
as you can see, those deleted supply/waste water dumps, were from
day 6 MET style at 19:35 and 20:45 time, more than 12 hours BEFORE our "UFO" videos
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.
I've loaded it here:
www.quickfilepost.com...
Well, this is the "execute package for flight day 8".
But we need for flight day 7.
As you may know, from the ST-75 Scene list, we identified the EXACT MOMENT of the tether video with "ufos", or what astronausts describes as "debris which flight with us":
*snip*
(page 75 of the document)
As you can see, these happened on Fligh day 7 (MET style), orbit 118-119, after ~8:54:40, when the "crew is looking for the TSS-1R sattelite", and the camera is looking in Centaur constellation where they estimated the tether should be, but they see the tether only after the orbital sunrise.
In this "execute package for flight day 8" which you posted here, we even have a reference for the previous day with the tether encounter:
MSG091A - FD08 page 1 of 2
So, have you the Execute package for flight day 7 ?
Originally posted by depthoffield
..and those are just "CHANGES TO THE FLIGHT PLAN", meaning doens't say a bit about NOT CHANGED actions planned before. Therefore, it doesn't say a bit about some FIRSTS PLANNED water/waste dump made in 07 MET day..it says just about some last CHANGES to the flight plan.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by mcrom901
in the meantime.... i find it strange nothing was mentioned about these 'debris' in the actual technical reports.......
ntrs.nasa.gov...
well, that report it looks to me, that it deals only with debris with destructive potential, like what happens on launch, separation, re-entry, landing, various chemical contaminants, tile hits etc..and doesn't deal with normal inofensive particles of debris made by water/waste/various nominal dumps unless having hazard potential.
Originally posted by depthoffield
The TOP/FES actions described here, related to some PROBLEMS, are from a day or more LATER than our debris (aaa "UFO's" movies), aka 062 GMT day.
Again, that also doesn't say anything about some water/waste/evaporation action made or not made in MET day 07 (061 GMT) when our "UFO's" were filmed.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by mcrom901
and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.
and what happens next..... if it will be confirmed to have actually occurred around the mentioned MET D07/11:45
Originally posted by depthoffield
We still wait some more data from NASA via Jim Oberg requests.
Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm still getting the brush-off from my JSC PAO contact, and it
looks like i'm going to have to use the FOIA option.
I suspect the lack of interest to be based on simple contempt
for the subject matter and for the people who remain curious.
But I'm aware there are other potential interpretations of motives,
and frankly, I'm fed up with defending NASA against such suspicions.
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg
good news for you........
ntrs.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by mcrom901
and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.