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.

 

An astronaut’s image and The Tether Incident – something I noticed...

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
As far as the Kenneth Arnold magazine cover, those are not notched... they're just partly in cloud cover!

Anyway, as far as it just being a wall paper... Well yeah, of course! But that doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly be a real picture as a wallpaper...

Just as a final note: I do agree that the one zorgon found does look A LOT a like except for the main disc. So in all likelyhood it is just an animated picture background, however I do find it interesting with the notch on it...
edit on 11-2-2011 by SpiritualAwakening because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Here are some NASA UFO videos including the tether incident and more stuff at this blog truthfullookufos.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I urge folks interested in these videos to look at these alternate interpretations...


Originally posted by JimOberg
Still, it's important to keep an eye open to anomalous visual stimuli on space flights...


MSNBC // June 13, 2008 // Why NASA watches out for true UFOs
today.msnbc.msn.com...

Briefing to NASA re spacecraft-generated debris and UFOs:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Reasons to keep eyes peeled out the windows (Apollo era)
www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
This is the shape I have been referring to. This shape keeps coming up. They look alive around the tether.

www.virtuescience.com...

22050hz.blogspot.com...

www.badarchaeology.net...

*Note in advance...This is just a theory. I wasn't around 10,000 years ago....Just Saying.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


Look at my original post. The cloud formations do not match, and the "prongs" are non-existent in the CG photo. And in the original photo, those prongs dont match up with the "flare" in the CG pic. Why is noone seeing my replies?!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I urge folks interested in these videos to look at these alternate interpretations...


We have seen your alternate interpretations of dust and debris and find them wanting


But I do thank you for the plasma phenomena document
Would not have found that without you



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by depthoffield

yeah it is pretty cool... shows the notched disks actually in focus while the rest is fuzzy.. No Bokehs there


Guess I will have to add it to my data and give you credit for finding more discs




Hey, Zorgon, where you lost you attention?! What happened?

So you're saying this capture of similar notched disc:





is not a simple example of bokeh?!?



Well, sure you didn't saw the movie from secretnasaman, but for your convenience here is a relevant animated sequence:




( may take some time until completly loaded on some poor internet conections)



As you can see, those particular discs with notches in this MIR sequence (which are unfocused images of some lights on the MIR = bokeh), are very similar with some representative tether incident discs, (of course they are similar, because they are bokeh made by the shuttle's camera in relation with objects outside of depth of field) (and similar with those pareidoliacs dropa stones/your cover magazine), are just that: not real discs, but images made by camera's lens (bokeh), which, for STS-75 objects shows that those are just very small and very close objects (debris = a trivial explanation which fit)

Sorry, Zorgon...i know you hate bokeh, since it contradicts your "critters" theory regarding STS-75 tether objects.. By the way, i guess you will never accept this, because it will make years and hundreds or even thousands of your postings here or there regarding this tether incident ("no bokeh done by debris, but critters") as a big/long time mistake .... (now waiting for your ironical answer)


==================



Originally posted by SpiritualAwakening
reply to post by depthoffield
 

Very good find. It just goes to show that the tehter incident was no fluke with random particles or whatever showing up on the lens...


Well, it was not my find, thanks, but as you see, the notched disc is not a real one, but generated by the lens... see above.


edit on 11/2/11 by depthoffield because: why not



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Hey, Zorgon, where you lost you attention?! What happened?
So you're saying this capture of similar notched disc:
is not a simple example of bokeh?!?


Of course they are not simple bokeh... They are obviously the only two in focus in your sample. But hey it's a great picture... thanks



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I thought it might be something from Star Trek as well. The object behind the saucer to the right looks like a Klingon Battlecruiser to me. The image also seems to me to be some kind of "space art" that the astronaut might have been looking at. Maybe from the 60's. Chesley Bonestell or the like.



edit on 2/11/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: pic

edit on 2/11/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: Bonestell



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Sorry, Zorgon...i know you hate bokeh, since it contradicts your "critters" theory regarding STS-75 tether objects..


Actually no... bokehs that may look like tether objects don't hurt my case at all. My 'critters' are moving and changing and exhibiting motion you can't account for no matter how hard you push the lens artifact theory



By the way, i guess you will never accept this, because it will make years and hundreds or even thousands of your postings here or there regarding this tether incident


Well heck... if you didn't have my posts and others who don't buy your bokehs, what would you do with yourself?



Well, it was not my find, thanks, but as you see, the notched disc is not a real one, but generated by the lens... see above.


So you keep saying yes... but a simple search on the internet will show many bokehs like these pentagons



Even heart shaped ones but still all in the same direction on one photo because they are created by only one hole.



But for some reason only YOUR Bokehs look similar to Critters

But YOUR Bokehs don't do this



Or this... like the big one on NASA's mission control screen



And even Gene Roddenberry who hung out at NASA in the 60's knows about Critters that are miles across



And you cannot explain the STS-80 critters coming out of the thunderstorm as bokehs either OR dust and ice particles

But I will give you a star for perseverance


edit on 11-2-2011 by zorgon because: Sirian Holiday Planning




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Originally posted by depthoffield
is not a simple example of bokeh?!?




and what is the source of the 'lights' in the above gif?


In photography, bokeh (Japanese pronunciation: [boke][1][2]) is the blur,[3][2] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[4][5][6] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by depthoffield
As you can see, those particular discs with notches in this MIR sequence (which are unfocused images of some lights on the MIR = bokeh), are very similar with some representative tether incident discs, (of course they are similar, because they are bokeh made by the shuttle's camera in relation with objects outside of depth of field) (and similar with those pareidoliacs dropa stones/your cover magazine), are just that: not real discs, but images made by camera's lens (bokeh), which, for STS-75 objects shows that those are just very small and very close objects (debris = a trivial explanation which fit)


so are you claiming that the bokehs in the mir sequence are a result of 'debris reflecting sunlight'?

in regards to your own thread re sts-75, which you plugged here.... you still have not responded to my many posts concerning the actual data from nasa...



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NLDelta9
I just want to know how the tether managed to be straight line and not a swirly mess like when it broke?


well i have my own theories on that,

for one it could be because it is in space, all its kinetic force is pushed to its ends which pulls itself straight,

for another it could be because that tether is a superconductor as designed by nasa, supercondocters absorb any energy they possibly can and are able to retain the energy with 0 loss due to 0 friction in the material for the energy to pass through. now think about the fact that we exist in a sea of energy even our outer space is a sea of energy specialy so close to our sun.

superconductors are also always magnetic,

so you have a cord that is building up energy and magnetism sitting in space with no way to release the energy its building up,

once you realize all this then it becomes obvious why the ufo's got so curious about the tether,



edit on 2/12/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Greetings everyone.. Just paying my respect to earn the right to post threads on this site.

Peace.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpiritualAwakening
As far as the Kenneth Arnold magazine cover, those are not notched... they're just partly in cloud cover!
]


If you look again they are infact c-cut UFO's my friend.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901


Originally posted by depthoffield




and what is the source of the 'lights' in the above gif?
..
so are you claiming that the bokehs in the mir sequence are a result of 'debris reflecting sunlight'?



No, ..my pre-answer at your post-question is included into my explanation which you quoted but maybe not readed properly, but I will repeat myself: "those particular discs with notches in this MIR sequence (which are unfocused images of some lights on the MIR = bokeh), " .
Clearly they are bokeh. Including notches. Done by shuttle camera, when trying to render the unfocused sources of light (some lights onto the MIR station) .

...similar with this another example of bokeh, again from NASA shuttle (STS-6) camera C, when trying to render the unfocused reflections from some shuttle structures:



...and similar with sts-75 discs, with notches, done by shuttle camera, when trying to render the unfocused sources of light.

Bokeh in all the cases cases, from unfocuces sources of light. Which, for STS-75, obligatory means the objects are close, and small, just meters/tens of meters away (it was calculated for some representative objects).
And the astronauts what are saying just when the action took place? It is recorded on the STS-75 movie: "there is a bit of debris which kinda fly with us illuminated by the sun" (if i remember correct the sentence).



Originally posted by mcrom901
in regards to your own thread re sts-75, which you plugged here.... you still have not responded to my many posts concerning the actual data from nasa...

There is not any "data from NASA" which exclude the presence of debris...just attempts to obfuscate the simple and inevitable conclusion that those discs can't be "big/distant alien ships or critters" but just bokeh from small and close objects.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

But YOUR Bokehs don't do this



Or this... like the big one on NASA's mission control screen







this BOKEH does this:



Or do you think it is a critter ?

(credit from youtube user named "sebastiansz" for finding the above pulsating bokeh from secretnasaman archives)


edit on 13/2/11 by depthoffield because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901

and what is the source of the 'lights' in the above gif?
..
so are you claiming that the bokehs in the mir sequence are a result of 'debris reflecting sunlight'?


No, ..my pre-answer at your post-question is included into my explanation which you quoted but maybe not readed properly, but I will repeat myself: "those particular discs with notches in this MIR sequence (which are unfocused images of some lights on the MIR = bokeh), " .
Clearly they are bokeh. Including notches. Done by shuttle camera, when trying to render the unfocused sources of light (some lights onto the MIR station) .


so if your answer is NO... then what are you talking about...


you still did not answer my question though i.e. "what is the source of the 'lights'" and you insist that you did so earlier by mentioning... "some lights"... o rly?



Originally posted by depthoffield
...similar with this another example of bokeh, again from NASA shuttle (STS-6) camera C, when trying to render the unfocused reflections from some shuttle structures:




n is the camera distance from the 'bokehs' the same?





Originally posted by depthoffield
...and similar with sts-75 discs, with notches, done by shuttle camera, when trying to render the unfocused sources of light.


due to the various distances between the 'sources of light' the camera artifacts are not consistently homogeneous....





Originally posted by depthoffield
Bokeh in all the cases cases, from unfocuces sources of light. Which, for STS-75, obligatory means the objects are close, and small, just meters/tens of meters away (it was calculated for some representative objects).


"obligatory"


go back and read your thread please...



Originally posted by depthoffield
And the astronauts what are saying just when the action took place? It is recorded on the STS-75 movie: "there is a bit of debris which kinda fly with us illuminated by the sun" (if i remember correct the sentence).


and the astronauts saw this how? by seeing that same video... or via some data?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901
in regards to your own thread re sts-75, which you plugged here.... you still have not responded to my many posts concerning the actual data from nasa...


There is not any "data from NASA" which exclude the presence of debris...just attempts to obfuscate the simple and inevitable conclusion that those discs can't be "big/distant alien ships or critters" but just bokeh from small and close objects.


what do you mean does not "exclude the presence of debris"


yawn... go back and read... its your claim...


edit on 13/2/11 by mcrom901 because: meh



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield


Or do you think it is a critter ?


Surely
What you have just proven to me is that NASA Bokeh's are HEXAGONAL, which makes sense for the shutter. I have seen that same shape on Apollo photos Since the SAME camera was used in all those NASA UFO images... this proves 100% that the notched ones cannot be bokehs as you claim. You cannot have different shaped bokehs from the same cameras to suit your needs.

The reason this one is pulsating is the same reason the others pulsate... because the object being photographed is pulsating. Now surely you don't expect people to believe that dust particles pulsate? Hmmm? Look at your clip... more pulsating ones in the distance.


So what you have here is obviously an out of focus critter, showing the hexagonal bokeh.

Thank you very much for this evidence...
It proves that bokeh in NASA images should be roughly hexagonal not notched.

Priceless
I will be sure to credit the finder


edit on 13-2-2011 by zorgon because: Classified



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

you still did not answer my question though i.e. "what is the source of the 'lights'" and you insist that you did so earlier by mentioning... "some lights"... o rly?


Cant't you see it? From the MIR itself.... I'm sure you are a smart person, therefore is clear you are just playing games...



in action:




. But when unfocused, appear as bokeh discs with notches. NASA camera doing bokeh with notches. q.e.d.




Originally posted by mcrom901


Originally posted by depthoffield
Bokeh in all the cases cases, from unfocuces sources of light. Which, for STS-75, obligatory means the objects are close, and small, just meters/tens of meters away (it was calculated for some representative objects).


"obligatory"


go back and read your thread please...


You should go to my thread, and all the people interested to really deny ignorance in this subject (sts-75 objects), because there are all the facts that demonstrates the "obligatory" term when speaking about objects in tether sequences must be small and close, meters and tens of meters away in order to fit the video simply because the laws of optics. Here a link to the topic.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Surely
What you have just proven to me is that NASA Bokeh's are HEXAGONAL, which makes sense for the shutter.


Wrong conclusion. It produces hexagonal bokeh when iris is down (most of the time), but when iris is almost to fully open (low light environment ), the bokeh is round...and with notches in this particular CAMERA C model.

Here the argument:

this is another example of bokeh, again from NASA shuttle (STS-6) camera C, when trying to render the unfocused reflections from some shuttle structures:



You can actually see how the iris is some kind of a circle with notch, first, but the iris is shrinking and it becames more like a hexagon without any notch...

You jump to wrong conclusions too fast...



Originally posted by zorgon
Since the SAME camera was used in all those NASA UFO images... this proves 100% that the notched ones cannot be bokehs as you claim.


yeah right... WRONG!



Originally posted by zorgon
The reason this one is pulsating is the same reason the others pulsate... because the object being photographed is pulsating

That is correct.



Originally posted by zorgon
Now surely you don't expect people to believe that dust particles pulsate? Hmmm? Look at your clip... more pulsating ones in the distance.


And how you explain these ice debris pulsate:



after 20 sec mark


let's see..rotating themselves, and because they are irregulate, they reflect periodically more or less light... in fact this is a method to measure their period of rotation (just like asteroids rotational time are measured by astronomers )



Originally posted by zorgon
So what you have here is obviously an out of focus critter, showing the hexagonal bokeh.


veeery funny! lol.

You make me laugh.

I guess it was a little cute critter, meters away from the camera. How to not love them.
edit on 13/2/11 by depthoffield because: why not




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join