Hi, Pimander,
I try to answer to you, despite time isn't a friend of mine (so, i could be too confuse in explanations)
First, my analysis doesn't conclude that ALL the objects seen in the full tether sequence are small particles close to the camera. I guess NOBODY can
conclude that never for every single particle. But it demonstrates something that critter/alien conspiracy theorists denied againd and again: close
and small particles are there in the image! How close? meters and tens of meters away from camera! How small? well, small enough to understand they
are particles in proximity of the shuttle. Debris (ice or whatever originates from the shuttle itself). Even the astronauts says that in real time:
"there is a bit of debris which kinda flying with us" (if i remember well the dialog). And what those conspiracy theorists says? No, it can't be
small and close, it can't be debris, therefore they are aliens ships/distant big critters, it defies rational explanation etc etc, look, please look,
dear audience, how misterious is the video etc. But they are wrong and clearly against a rational explanation which tickle their credibility. But as
you can see, just one arbitrary second of focus-defocus maneuver, analysed by me, which, because the laws of optics, gave a method of understanding
the DEPTH of the image (otherwise, ussually a video/photo is simple a bidimensional representation of reality, where the 3-rd dimension, depth, is
lost). And that arbitrary second, full of very representative "UFOs", was so lucky to detect not a single one distant but only many closer and small
objects, most likely DEBRIS near the shuttle ?!? How is that? It means, that there, in the vicinity of the shuttle, there are DEBRIS close to it,
appearing in the image. Something which those cospiracy theorists were unhappy to accept as a posibility. Now, accepting that some of those are
debris, which APPEAR OR HAVE curved trajectories (normal in space in appropiate conditions), or discs appearance (bokeh) then, or other interesting
characteristics, we need a criteria to tell us what objects there are NOT debris or small particles, but REAL/TRUE UFO's. And that criteria is.. let
me guess.... ignorance in knowing all the aspects involved (debris and their cause/manifestation, image artifacts and limitations, orbital movement of
shuttle and debris in it's simplicity but complexity as well etc)?
Originally posted by Pimander
Now take a look at the section of this video (which you used in your analysis) at about 5m0s to 5m25s.
In this section from about 5mthere are obviously moving UFO's that become more in focus when the tether becomes more in focus. Using your logic
that means that those UFO's are further from the shuttle than 105m NOT nearer.
well, in this part you say to take a look, i don't see a lens focus/defocus maneuveur.
I see a bit of optical zoom. But i also recognise from my little experience how automatic exposure works (- do you?), here it is: together with the
zoom, the big bright flare inside the lens appearing in the right part of the frame, is becaming bigger and brighter. This affects the automatic gain
of the electronics of the camera, which aknowledged that there is a bigger and very bright (overexposed) area of the frame, therefore the gain is
reduced in an attempt to do the automatic medium proper exposure (it is simply how it works). This affects the tethter, stars, objects and overall sky
brightness, making them less exposed or darker, reducing the BLOOMING (do you also recognise/know this artifact?) of tether and very bright objects,
therefore making them to appear more like "in focus" than before.
So, in fact, that sequence selected by you, does not show a real lens focus maneuveur, but a automatic gain variation which reduces the blooming of
overbright objects, giving the primary sensation that is a focus action, despite it is not. Therefore, you don't have any indication of depth of the
image here, so, you can't tell that the objects are more distant or not. You are stuck in the two dimensional representation here, and can't judge
the depth. Therefore, you can't apply "my logic" here, because here we don't have a lens focus-defocus action able to "scan" the depth of the
image.
Originally posted by Pimander
It looks suspiciously like you selected a section of the sequence for analysis or were careless not to study other sections.
Well, i selected the single relevant sequence where, because it contains the focus-defocus lens maneuveur, and based on it we are able to understand
the DEPTH of the image, so, if you read properly my analysis , i was able to make separation between objects and stars, allowed me to understand which
were stars and not (and later to find the stars in charts!), and then calculate the distance to the objects. All other sequences are flat, and are not
suitable for that analysis. (due to ignored 3d dimension = depth of the image). So, if you call it suspiciously, then..it's your choice.
Originally posted by Pimander
A proper analysis would involve obtaining the original video for a start!
unfortunately i'm not able to do this, and i worked with what i have, but this should never stoped us to think critically of it..despite low quality
we recognise the focus-defocus maneuveur (laws of optics, bokeh, cat-eye effect etc).
I don't look with good eyes the attitude: "i think it's low quality, any researches are useless, instead look how beautiful and misterious it is"
(in this atittude, why bother to look if it is useless??) (this not directed to you, but i know this general attitude of some people)
Originally posted by Pimander
You would also need to analyse the whole sequence to see if your findings are consistent or repeatable.
unfortunately, the tether sequence is just like that, we have only that.
yes, i should make a + 200 pages book, and spend months of studies, graphics and explanations just to be ignored by the masses which simple looks for
a form of entertainment when looking of these "ufo's"..sorry, i can't do it unless i can have a kind of benefit from it...or too much spare time
to spend.
Originally posted by Pimander
Another criticism would be that a lot of what you assume is the camera focus changing appears like it is just as likely to be someone tampering with
the contrast. How have you eliminated that possibility? There is even one point when one of the voices mentions contrast.
I don't assumed that. That focus-defocus lens maneuveur is just that: a focus-defocus lens maneuveur. If you don't recognise it, then, ask a skilled
photographer. Of course we also have in the whole tether movie all kind of gain/iris adjustements together with over/under exposures, bloomings or
other artifacts. Keep in mind that those are very challenging shooting conditions beyound dynamic range of any camera: low light = dark sky with dim
stars still visible, but filled with objects (debris and tether) which are in direct sunlight, but more, the sun light strike the lens making those
big static flares spoiling more the image. In this conditions, how should be the PROPER exposure? Answer: a compromise...
point of my analysis: there are small and close objects near the shuttle, meters or tens of meters away, plenty of them, appearing in image as
relevant "UFO's". Debris are described by direct witnesses (astronaut). Debris are common in space due to shuttle activities. Therefore, i don't
have a reason to think at them as being distant alien ships or critters in space. But ask David Sereda, Secretnasaman or many others: they will simply
deny even the posibility of trivial causes like debris, because it contradicts their ego/intents: the audience must look at their misteries.
Finally, an example of daylight debris near the shuttle, way less challenging shooting conditions, just for example of trivial phenomenon which is
"debris":
