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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Everything was in focus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know what I see in the videos and your explanations do not come near what I perceive and process.
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,
... 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".
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.?
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.
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?
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)
Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
I guess my only question is how much are they paying you and where do i sign up? [
Originally posted by mcrom901
....why is it that 'prosaic' explanations are exempt from the burden of proof?
Originally posted by JimOberg
*snip* and somehow I'm supposed to be the guy without evidence?
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...