STS-48: Debunking Kasher's Five "It-Can't-Be-Ice" Proofs

I still think it's just ice.

I think a lot more attention should be given to the video of the multiple objects that move and then stop in place, one after the after, forming a near-perfect circle. That wasn't ice. And that is the video that should be analyzed in great detail.

Why is it after all these years there are still some that feel the NASA tether footage is something strange!?!? It's an optical illusion-- small pieces of dust/ ice/ general normal everyday space debris floating in front of the camera lens!! geeese peeps give it a rest zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring!

Do any of the hot-headed true believer types have anything to add besides cheap jabs at Jim Oberg? How about, you know, some hard data, facts, anything...

Hey, speaking of *agendas* I think I detect a bit of an agenda to force people to believe these pieces of debris are intelligently piloted craft from a space-faring civilization. The thing is - they seem to neglect to follow up with any sort of proof.

But that's alright. I wasn't really expecting any.

reply to post by DissonantOne
yep, spot on Diss.. good words

Originally posted by dejarmaX
Why is it after all these years there are still some that feel the NASA tether footage is something strange!?!? It's an optical illusion-- small pieces of dust/ ice/ general normal everyday space debris floating in front of the camera lens!! geeese peeps give it a rest zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring!

I am not in a position to discuss the tether fiasco in technical terms except to point out that the tether was x miles away from the shuttle camera and nothing at that distance is ice particles! If the ice particles travel with the shuttle, they would have never been captured by the camera and if they were they would have been formless blobs, way out of focus because of their proximity to the camera and would never have assumed the shapes that one sees floating.

All explanations for ice crystals just fail using common sense. I wish I could find the videos I have showing real ice particles, nothing like what one sees on the multitude of SAOs videos. If I was able to show you the footage future arguments for space UFOs being ice crystals would cease especially when SAOs are at distance instead of "hanging around the shuttle" which are rarely seen.

reply to post by The Shrike

Perhaps you may want to review this thread. An exceptionally well done technical analysis.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by The Shrike

i
I agree with phage. Here is a video debunking the tether incident as well

Originally posted by DissonantOne
Do any of the hot-headed true believer types have anything to add besides cheap jabs at Jim Oberg? How about, you know, some hard data, facts, anything...

Hey, speaking of *agendas* I think I detect a bit of an agenda to force people to believe these pieces of debris are intelligently piloted craft from a space-faring civilization. The thing is - they seem to neglect to follow up with any sort of proof.

But that's alright. I wasn't really expecting any.

I'll tell you what the problem is. With the exception of Jim Oberg, who as an ex-NASA ex-employee may be the only person on this forum with any kind of space expertise but still operating from an earthbound POV, no other member is really qualified to speak as an authority on what the NASA videos show. Even Jim's explanation can be criticized because like all of us he hasn't been in space so he is not a witness to what is seen in situ. He extrapolates, and so do the "experts" here.

What we all have in common is that we see the same material and come to different conclusions. I come to my conclusions which are anti-ice crystals because I've seen videos showing ice crystals and the videos that contain what we call space UFOs are totally different material. No matter how much data is examined, it's what is seen with the eyes that matter.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of photography knows about what objects look like when they are near the lens and when they are far away. We have all seen videos showing fleets of nighttime "UFOs" and they resemble what is seen in some videos, white "orb-like" objects. These fleets don't look like ice crystals 'cause they are at a vast distance from the recording videocamera so they're in focus. So are what we see in the NASA videos.

The NASA videos show these objects at a distance and they are seen drifting, turning, stopping, massing, etc. Ice crystals have never been videotaped imitating these various types of behavior. All we get are explantions with no supporting evidence in the form of NASA videos.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Perhaps you may want to review this thread. An exceptionally well done technical analysis.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks but analyses by earthbound analysts leave me wanting. To some, these explanations may be the cat's meow, but not this cat. I cannot explain technically but I cannot accept the technical explanation. I don't know what we are seeing but there's no way that it convinces me that we're seeing ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc. I'll remain with the ignorant.

Originally posted by The Shrike


The NASA videos show these objects at a distance and they are seen drifting, turning, stopping, massing, etc. Ice crystals have never been videotaped imitating these various types of behavior. All we get are explantions with no supporting evidence in the form of NASA videos.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this to be honest, but hey, what the hell:

this tether footage is a perfect example of people desperately trying to make something out of nothing IMHO!! It's boring! !

The strange little notches in these so called objects are not strange--- they are a well known lens anomaly when something is close to the lens with minimal density & out of focus...

Something very bright with substance (as in this case: ''the tether''') will take precedence (optically) over something less dense giving the impression of 'being behind' the main object in focus, again: (as in this case: ''the tether''') >>>> fact!!!

I work in this field & (as an example) I had to edit footage of a woman in a very light cotton cape, dancing around... The piano in the background looked as if it were in front of the cape--- an optical illusion, trust me...

Anyways, if this were real footage of an intelligently controlled craft of unknown origin that the authorities do not want us to see; do people really think NASA would allow the world to see it!?!? Or maybe those at NASA are really stupid?? Come on, get real peeps!

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by The Shrike

 

i
I agree with phage. Here is a video debunking the tether incident as well

There is no debunking in that video. It's a bunch of speculators and assumptors, extrapolating. The team of UFO HUNTERS are not my first choice to debunk anything.

reply to post by The Shrike

Thanks but analyses by earthbound analysts leave me wanting.

Optics are the same in space as they are on Earth.
DepthofField knows optics and his analysis shows that the objects are close to the camera.

reply to post by The Shrike


Well it can't possibly prove a negative, but it sure shows that the video could easily just have been from ice particles.

I don't really understand your post, if explaining and reproducing a UFO video with something perfectly mundane isn't debunking I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Thanks but analyses by earthbound analysts leave me wanting.

Optics are the same in space as they are on Earth.
DepthofField knows optics and his analysis shows that the objects are close to the camera.

I have never seen a NASA video where the cameras were ever focused on anything nearby outside of the shuttle. Therefore, I've never seen a view representing the view represented by the view shown on the right half of the 2 photos below. IOW, the NASA videos never show anything close to the shuttle as far as anomalous objects.

If any NASA video was showing ice crystals that "always travel with the shuttle" we'd see the view on the left photo.

reply to post by The Shrike

The objects are not in focus. They are very much out of focus and exhibiting the phenomenon known as bokeh. Do you see those circles over the out of focus guy's shoulder? That is bokeh.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by The Shrike

If any NASA video was showing ice crystals that "always travel with the shuttle" we'd see the view on the left photo.

So they use auto focus on all shots is that what you are saying

A lot of the issues under dispute on this thread are addressed head-on here.

Comments and criticisms appreciated!

99 Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs] about astronauts and UFOs
jamesoberg.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The Shrike

 

The objects are not in focus. They are very much out of focus and exhibiting the phenomenon known as bokeh. Do you see those circles over the out of focus guy's shoulder? That is bokeh.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I should have edited out that part of the photo so that it wouldn't end in confusement as it did with you. What I was trying to illustrate is that if a camera is focused on a nearby object, let's say an ice crystal a short distance from the shuttle in inches or maybe a foot, then distance objects will be blurred. If you focus on a distant object, then the nearby object will be out of focus. Some special lenses will allow both near and far objects to be in focus but I don't think that the cameras on the shuttle have these lenses

The photo on the left shows the lens focused on a nearby leaf so that the guy is out of focus. Opposite for the photo on the right. The fact that the photos are marked AUTO FOCUS / MANUAL FOCUS is immaterial. They should have been labeled, correctly, NEAR FOCUS / FAR FOCUS because the one marked MANUAL FOCUS could have been taken with auto focus as all that the photograper needed do was put the autofocus point above the leaves in the foreground and the lens would have focused past the leaves.

reply to post by depthoffield


dof, sts-75 again? oh my.... lovely gif there, btw... selected sequence? what's the duration on that? is it the whole thing? or, can you similarly account for the more drastic maneuvers? i seem to have missed them... anywhoo... www.vgl.org...

Originally posted by Phage
DepthofField knows optics and his analysis shows that the objects are close to the camera.