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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

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



Its NOT SPECIAL lenses its all to do with focal length and aperture and a thing called hyperfocal distance.
Other things can effect it if you use a digital camera sensor size for example.

Here is a link to explain it.

www.dofmaster.com...

Every lens has a depth of filed chart which shows which area will be in focus at a certain aperture using data like this if you know a lens is focused at infinity you can work out if an object was to close to the camera to be in focus.

Here is some info re wide angle lenses


Normal to wide-angle lenses (50mm and shorter lenses on 35mm cameras) are good candidates for hyperfocal distance focusing. These lenses have a relatively short hyperfocal distance when set to larger f-numbers. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 28mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm camera is about 5.5 feet. Everything from 2.75 feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance.



For Telephoto


Telephoto lenses are rarely used for hyperfocal distance focusing. The hyperfocal distance is quite distant with these lenses. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 200mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm camera is about 275 feet. Everything from about 138 feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance. You can see that a 200mm lens isn't useful for taking a landscape photograph in which you want near objects to be sharp.



This was all looked at in previous threads!




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I am replying to 2 FAQ questions and answers in your "99 Frequently Asked Questions {FAQs} about astronauts and UFOs" if it's okay to do so here.

I'm not replying to Questions 1 thru 4 'cause we've already dealt with those questions since the early '90s and I'm not going to rehash them again since we're both stuck on our POVs, with me not agreeing with you. I know what I see in the videos and your explanations do not come near what I perceive and process.

Before I get to the 2 questions, below, I want to remind you that I think it was in the video footage from STS-63 where I discovered my phenomena, that as a female astronaut is describing a night scene full of white objects that are not stars and could not be shuttle debris, especially ice crystals, as the astronaut is narrating about picking out MIR, a large, round, pulsating white object drifts into the scene and we get what I call a pregnant pause 'cause I'm sure that the astronaut was shocked to see this object. I do not think for one second that a trained astronaut is going to be "silenced" because an ice crystal came into view with the camera taking in a large view, not focused to the shuttle's nearby space.

There are "alien" objects out there and it's amazing that you are wearing blinders with which you try to convince us who have a wider "view".


05 Q: What’s the harm in these stories?

A: The first victims of these stories are the believers themselves, especially the young people who are genuinely interested in space exploration, science, and humanity’s place in the Universe. Their assessments of these and related topics can stay seriously warped for a long time, sometimes a lifetime. And often when they come to realize they were misled, they feel a bitterness to the entire concept of spaceflight.


You are reading way too much in your own answer. Young people are smarter than you give them credit for. Young people have a learning period before they mature and possibly get involved with the space industry and even if they don't what you are trying to convey cannot be a factor in anyone's life. Please provide an example of such a person that has been affected the way you describe the scenario.


06 Q: You’ve also claimed the stories are “dangerously distracting, and unintentionally insulting both the subject matter and the target audience” .That’s a pretty broad put-down of a broad topic, how do you justify it?

A: It’s dangerous both to our astronauts and the entire nation because incorrect interpretations of in-flight reports can distract from glimpses of genuine hazards on space missions. With too many false alarms, perhaps a genuine warning could be overlooked, even briefly.


Again, you get carried away with suppositions. How can you say that highly-educated, highly-trained individuals be affected by what you term “one of the greatest myths of the Space Age”? How can shuttle astronauts ignore their onboard duties to concern themselves with ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc.? What kind of false alarms are they reacting to? A genuine warning of what, spent Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) in their orbits? Anything in their orbits! Aren't shuttles equipped with radar-type warning systems of anything that is in their vecinity?

Can you cite examples of dangerous situations as intimated by you in your answer?

When I have the time I will return to your FAQ webpage and continue reading.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Before I get to the 2 questions, below, I want to remind you that I think it was in the video footage from STS-63 where I discovered my phenomena, that as a female astronaut is describing a night scene full of white objects that are not stars and could not be shuttle debris, especially ice crystals, as the astronaut is narrating about picking out MIR, a large, round, pulsating white object drifts into the scene and we get what I call a pregnant pause 'cause I'm sure that the astronaut was shocked to see this object.



Or, she didn't have anything to say because Mir could not be identified amongst the cloud of ice crystals. But are you sure it was an astronaut who was speaking?

STS-63 had a leaky RCS jet. It was so bad that it caused a lot of concern about the planned rendezvous with Mir.

Early in the flight the propellant spewed in a conical pattern, "like a snowstorm for five miles up into space," according to Commander Jim Wetherbee. The Russians didn’t want Discovery to come within 1,000 feet of Mir. But NASA flight controllers and the Discovery crew "worked the problem," at times rolling the Orbiter to warm the thrusters in the Sun.

history.nasa.gov...
edit on 3/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I visited the Bronx Zoo many decades ago and as I stood outside in front of the tigers' cage the audience was kept at a distance of a few feet by a knee-high barrier. I took a few photos of a tiger reclining towards the rear of the cage near the door that allows them into the cage for visitors to see. I concentrated my photos on the tiger's face that I could see through the cage's bars which were x inches apart. The resulting photos included part of the bars I shot through and the bars being closer than the tiger became transparent, ghostly-like, because my focus was beyond them. If I had focused on the bars the tiger would have been out of focus.

Why we're discussing basic photography is beyond me. If a shuttle astronaut photographs distance objects any visible ice crystal or debris is going to be out of focus, period. Since ice crystals and debris are rarely seen in the multitude of videos released to the public I doubt very much if the busy astronauts are going to waste time photographing ice crystals or debris. They're interested in the distant scenes and will zoom in on "ice crystals" when said "crystals" come together as seen in some videos. Those are not ice crystals, dammit!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

You are missing the point.
The ice crystals are out of focus. That is why the bokeh effect is seen. Just like the bright spots behind the out of focus guy in your example, they take on a circular appearance because of the optics of the camera.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Before I get to the 2 questions, below, I want to remind you that I think it was in the video footage from STS-63 where I discovered my phenomena, that as a female astronaut is describing a night scene full of white objects that are not stars and could not be shuttle debris, especially ice crystals, as the astronaut is narrating about picking out MIR, a large, round, pulsating white object drifts into the scene and we get what I call a pregnant pause 'cause I'm sure that the astronaut was shocked to see this object.



Or, she didn't have anything to say because Mir could not be identified amongst the cloud of ice crystals. But are you sure it was an astronaut who was speaking?

STS-63 had a leaky RCS jet. It was so bad that it caused a lot of concern about the planned rendezvous with Mir.

Early in the flight the propellant spewed in a conical pattern, "like a snowstorm for five miles up into space," according to Commander Jim Wetherbee. The Russians didn’t want Discovery to come within 1,000 feet of Mir. But NASA flight controllers and the Discovery crew "worked the problem," at times rolling the Orbiter to warm the thrusters in the Sun.

history.nasa.gov...
edit on 3/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Oh, come on, Phage, did you and Oberg attend the same school of goobledygook talk? Do you think that you are the only one(s) that can interprest what one sees anywhere, anytime? I've said it over and over that the NASA videos that I've seenshowing ice crystals detaching from the shuttle do not resemble anything like what is seen on the majority of NASA videos released to the public. Shown ice crystals do not behave anything like the multiple anomalous objects we term SUFOs.

I cannot say now, without viewing the video which is stored but can be found on YouTube with a dilligent search, that the narrator was aboard the shuttle or in an earthbound control room. But there is no doubt about the synchronicity of appearing object and the instant silence when she was narrating in a normal, continuing voice. And she described where MIR was located but it was lost in similar-looking "ice crystals"! Everything was in focus.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Everything was in focus.

How do you know that? How can you possibly know that? You talk about the out of focus bars of the tiger enclosure being "transparent". How could you tell they were transparent? Because there was something behind them?
Bokeh..."airy disk". Out of focus light source

edit on 3/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
To everyone in this thread:

forget how good & convincing it looks..... Is there anyone here who honestly believes that NASA & the authorities would allow the general public to easily access footage like this if in fact what we're seeing really are: 'intelligently controlled aerial vehicles' ?? ---- something they are trying to keep from us!?!? If so, why are we all seeing it? I really can't understand why 'some' still feel this footage holds validity!?!? Move on -- to what one might ask? hmmm, maybe rehash Roswell or the Rendlesham case.. oh joy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Peace.

dej...
edit on 25-3-2012 by dejarmaX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The Shrike
 

You are missing the point.
The ice crystals are out of focus. That is why the bokeh effect is seen. Just like the bright spots behind the out of focus guy in your example, they take on a circular appearance because of the optics of the camera.


I became aware of this optical effect when catadioptric lens became popular in the 1960s and it started to be used by professional photographers for its dreamy-like effect. I've been familiar with photography since 1955 and have owned a ton of various cameras and lenses and did some basic lab work. You're not telling me things I don't know. You either focus on a nearby object or a farther away object and certain factors are going to affect the final image depending on what results you want.


Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.

Bokeh is different from sharpness. Sharpness is what happens at the point of best focus. Bokeh is what happens away from the point of best focus.


Split-field lens:

One-half of a close-up lens with the other half open. One-half of the picture receives a close-up effect while the other half is normal. Both very close and far subjects can be in focus at the same time. Or one-half of the picture can be out of focus for special effects.


And there's another special lens that I cannot remember its name that allows a full focus from the front of the lens to infinity.

And yeas ago in other UFO forums I showed photos of the white object that has a pie notch in it (Tether) with comparable photos of approaching headlights showing the same notch. I won't get into an explanation of that at the moment.

Finally, there is no "bokeh" effect seen in most, if not all, of the NASA videos under discussion, especially STS-63 night scenes.

Last but not least, for what it's worth, when I met my wife in 1972 her brother was an award-winning commercial photographer with his own large studio famous for the parties held there and attended by the advertising industry. When he found out I had extensive photography experience starting when he was only 13, he asked me to assist him in many studio and location shoots. When he went to Wash., D.C. to the National Archives to photograph the Roswell files, I helped him with the film processing.


edit on 25-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.
edit on 25-3-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I am replying to 2 FAQ questions and answers in your "99 Frequently Asked Questions {FAQs} about astronauts and UFOs" if it's okay to do so here.


That was the purpose of my posting the link.


I know what I see in the videos and your explanations do not come near what I perceive and process.


But by providing the details of your interpretive process you have helped us pinpoint the factual fallacies and false assumptions that you make, that lead you to the misinterpretation. Try this...


I want to remind you that I think it was in the video footage from STS-63 where I discovered my phenomena, that as a female astronaut is describing a night scene full of white objects that are not stars and could not be shuttle debris,


Major false assumpion -- a 'night scene'. Read my FAQs again about the criticality of determining the illumination conditions of any scene in question.It can be very illuminating -- which is perhaps a good reason that the UFO promoters WITHHOLD the precise date/time of posted videos, to stymie this step.

My investigation shows me that this scene, as with most of the other most notorious 'shuttle UFO' scenes, occurred during the brief post-sunrise 'shuttle shadow' period. Aside from the small area of shadow downsun of the shuttle, the space around the camera is bathed in bright sunlight and anything floating there will be sunlit.

Can we establish that fact -- and discuss its ramifications?



... as the astronaut is narrating about picking out MIR, a large, round, pulsating white object drifts into the scene and we get what I call a pregnant pause 'cause I'm sure that the astronaut was shocked to see this object. I do not think for one second that a trained astronaut is going to be "silenced" because an ice crystal came into view with the camera taking in a large view, not focused to the shuttle's nearby space.


Since this interpretation hangs so completely on your ability to get into the mind of the witness, what efforts have you ever made to contact the witness and ask directly?



There are "alien" objects out there and it's amazing that you are wearing blinders with which you try to convince us who have a wider "view".


Stubborn repetition is not an effective technique of logical argument.





06 Q: You’ve also claimed the stories are “dangerously distracting, and unintentionally insulting both the subject matter and the target audience” .That’s a pretty broad put-down of a broad topic, how do you justify it?

A: It’s dangerous both to our astronauts and the entire nation because incorrect interpretations of in-flight reports can distract from glimpses of genuine hazards on space missions. With too many false alarms, perhaps a genuine warning could be overlooked, even briefly.


Again, you get carried away with suppositions. How can you say that highly-educated, highly-trained individuals be affected by what you term “one of the greatest myths of the Space Age”? How can shuttle astronauts ignore their onboard duties to concern themselves with ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc.?


Both flight crew and ground control are constantly alert to unexplainable visual stimuli outside because of the very real possibility of threat to mission, vehicle, and even the crew. I thought my FAQs included that assertion.

What kind of false alarms are they reacting to? A genuine warning of what, spent Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) in their orbits? Anything in their orbits! Aren't shuttles equipped with radar-type warning systems of anything that is in their vecinity?

Under what bizarre circumstance could you imagine a Solid Rocket booster in anybody's orbit?

As for shuttles being equippped for radar scanning for collision hazard, you're correct this is a common belief but it's totally baseless. It's just another 'earthside analogy' that folks think are valid to extend to space, that helps mislead them -- as you have been misled -- by flase assumptions. I had a FAQ on this question, too.]



Can you cite examples of dangerous situations as intimated by you in your answer?


Didn't you read that FAQ?


When I have the time I will return to your FAQ webpage and continue reading.


Oh, i see -- OK, continue reading and you'll see where I've already answered most of your questions.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


The reason is simple depth of field DEPENDS on focal length,aperture and distance focused on with your tiger picture what was the focal length,what is the focal length of the camera used for the NASA videos, you have to compare apples with apples, much work was done on a previous thread to show the ice crystals were close compared to the tether.

There was also a video posted of one of these objects passing close in front of an astronaut will try to find the link.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I am sorry but both the "proofs" and "disproofs" are heavily flawed here. And while the proofs are at least logical assumptions, the disproofs are just legerdemain, slyly constructed by someone with an agenda. This fact alone makes me actually believe this to be real, although i did not before. Why waste resources to come up with disproof like this?


Well said and yes Op has failed miserably at this so called debunking imho.

Dont get me started on J.O. ehem the agenda is obvious just do a forum search on his past posts on the sts mission. Might as well argue with Micheal Shermer. It just makes debunking look bad, dismissal of logic and imposing fallacy to suit ones agenda. Jim needs to give it up all ready. I dont know why he is so hell bent on undermining the UFO subject one can speculate. Its good to debunk if you are actually interested in the truth but not in this case. JO has damaged his reputation and credebility enough. Oh and I highly reccomend the keane book btw.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
double post
edit on 26-3-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Specific examples would be appreciated.


Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I am sorry but both the "proofs" and "disproofs" are heavily flawed here. And while the proofs are at least logical assumptions, the disproofs are just legerdemain, slyly constructed by someone with an agenda. This fact alone makes me actually believe this to be real, although i did not before. Why waste resources to come up with disproof like this?


Well said and yes Op has failed miserably at this so called debunking imho.

Dont get me started on J.O. ehem the agenda is obvious just do a forum search on his past posts on the sts mission. Might as well argue with Micheal Shermer. It just makes debunking look bad, dismissal of logic and imposing fallacy to suit ones agenda. Jim needs to give it up all ready. I dont know why he is so hell bent on undermining the UFO subject one can speculate. Its good to debunk if you are actually interested in the truth but not in this case. JO has damaged his reputation and credebility enough. Oh and I highly reccomend the keane book btw.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
correlation does not imply causation, right? so, are we back to dualistic black n white thinking here? i.e. ice or alienz? en.wikipedia.org... why is it that 'prosaic' explanations are exempt from the burden of proof? www.abovetopsecret.com... or is it the null hypothesis *cough* in the face of some non-claimed extraordinariness? is that how the scientific method works? according to jim there are no such things as uap



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Sorry Jim but I gotta call it like i see it, I would call this pseudo-debunking

The objects move under intelligent control for one , the size of these objects passing behind the tether as well. I mean you just cant explain that away in a logical manner and keep a straight face. I guess my only question is how much are they paying you and where do i sign up?
edit on 26-3-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
I guess my only question is how much are they paying you and where do i sign up?
[


I seem to have lost the charge number and address for my invoices, too. Tell you what -- you find out, and I'll give you a 10% finder's fee for my unpaid stack of claims, which to date has reached $1,000,000,046.50.

You're not related to the guy who snitched on me to the IRS, are you? Many years ago I got an alarming phone call from an IRS office somewhere in Texas, announcing an inquiry about an unpaid-tax-snitch letter they had gotten related to my undeclared bribe income from TPTB, Inc. The letter writer wanted his bounty on tax evaders. We had an illuminating conversation of my UFO writings [for OMNI magazine in those days] and the malevolent reaction of some UFO nuts to it. After that explanation, the IRS caller chuckled, said he was satisfied, and added, "I should have suspected that, when I saw the letter to us was written in crayon."

Anybody you know?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
....why is it that 'prosaic' explanations are exempt from the burden of proof?


You really have no clue about 'onus probandi' in criminal trials and in scientific theories, do you?

My arguments contain factual data, names and quotes of verifiable witnesses, complete transcripts and telemetry readouts -- all the stuff that Martyn Stubbs and David Sereda and Clark McClelland and Jeff Challender normally withheld from you... and somehow I'm supposed to be the guy without evidence?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
*snip* and somehow I'm supposed to be the guy without evidence?


last time we were discussing said data... you were still looking for it, which btw was presented to you... www.abovetopsecret.com... and funny enough you want those who are questioning said 'prosaic' stance to "agree" with you so that you will have some kinda motivation to dig up further? weird...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
*snip* and somehow I'm supposed to be the guy without evidence?


last time we were discussing said data... you were still looking for it, which btw was presented to you... www.abovetopsecret.com... and funny enough you want those who are questioning said 'prosaic' stance to "agree" with you so that you will have some kinda motivation to dig up further? weird...



No, sensibly economical.

I've done several in-depth investigations of the top 'space ufo' videos, especially STS-48. When people ask me to do a 6th project, or a 10th, or a 20th, I've got to ask, what's the value if you already show you're automatically going to refuse to even try to understand it, and give it a fair consideration and counterargument.

For example, the clearly closed-minded fingers-in-ear eyes-squeezed-shut mind-opened-to-let-brain-fall-out approach to the topic of this thread.

So the demand for more and more and more case studies, after rejecting all case studies already provided, is evidently just a demand I waste more time to no avail.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join