Youtube: STS-75 'Notched Disk' UFO seen orbiting Moon

reply to post by eriktheawful

ice crystals and particles

So you are going with Ice crystals base? Ok. And it's normal that they all be same shape...only different sizes? Circular with a notch on a same side? I thought ice crystals tumble through space? do they faze (sorry...pulsate) in / out without turning ?


So you do not support the bokeh explanation?

ps. I would very much appreciate your attempt to replicate.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I already agree that the affect, in the main is from something close up, and diaphanous in nature, but in STS75 there is a lot going on, probably inside all the mechanical gubbins, but also outside as well. The definite 'black spot' I mentioned earlier is seen in front of the object disc, and so has to be closer that the object disc, and not diaphanous. I post this link that shows the black spot, (it need not be moving) and other features. The music is nice, but turn it down,

www.youtube.com...

Not seeing the black spot...can you give a time and where to see it?

Also what cases the pulsating?

What band is that in your profile pic?

It is seeable at 4.53 examined in closeup.

The pulsating is not consistent in the whole pictures, so not likely to do with poor frame quality alone, some stuff other than the object disc may be irregular shape and tumbling, different things going on, in different time zones. In a word or two, I don't know. It sure looks like some of the NASA types watching are intrigued though, and it does look at times as though the camera is trained on more than just the tether.

The band is The Stellas from Germany.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

ice crystals and particles

So you are going with Ice crystals base? Ok. And it's normal that they all be same shape...only different sizes? Circular with a notch on a same side? I thought ice crystals tumble through space? do they faze (sorry...pulsate) in / out without turning ?


So you do not support the bokeh explanation?

ps. I would very much appreciate your attempt to replicate.

edit on 13-6-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

Okay, your post here shows me that you still do not understand the out of focus aberrations. They all look like circles because they are way too close to the telescope's focal length. Their shape or if they are tumbling or not will not matter because they are so out of focus, and yes, in effect "bokeh" is a good example of things being so out of focus they appear circular.

Some will have the center blockage, some will not depending upon their distance from the primary mirror of the telescope.

Bokeh is a good example of things being so out of focus in some cases that their shape doesn't matter. Couple that with Catadioptric System and you get a pretty good example of what is going on.

Again, I'll try to replicate it, but I'll need a clear night to do it (no rain). Or, anyone else on here can try.

reply to post by eriktheawful


So just to understand where you stand on this:

you're saying it's ice crystals floating around, that are so out of focus they appear circular and notched ?

Am I correct?

I just wanna be clear as to not presume something you didn't say...

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

ice crystals and particles

So you are going with Ice crystals base? Ok. And it's normal that they all be same shape...only different sizes? Circular with a notch on a same side? I thought ice crystals tumble through space? do they faze (sorry...pulsate) in / out without turning ?


So you do not support the bokeh explanation?

ps. I would very much appreciate your attempt to replicate.

edit on 13-6-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

Okay, your post here shows me that you still do not understand the out of focus aberrations. They all look like circles because they are way too close to the telescope's focal length. Their shape or if they are tumbling or not will not matter because they are so out of focus, and yes, in effect "bokeh" is a good example of things being so out of focus they appear circular.

Some will have the center blockage, some will not depending upon their distance from the primary mirror of the telescope.

Bokeh is a good example of things being so out of focus in some cases that their shape doesn't matter. Couple that with Catadioptric System and you get a pretty good example of what is going on.

Again, I'll try to replicate it, but I'll need a clear night to do it (no rain). Or, anyone else on here can try.

...and this is where my ADHD kicks in...because it really does get very....mundane. The more you look at the explanation, the more it fits.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So just to understand where you stand on this:

you're saying it's ice crystals floating around, that are so out of focus they appear circular and notched ?

Am I correct?

I just wanna be clear as to not presume something you didn't say...

Yes, Ice crystals, particulates, etc. In the STS-75 video.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So just to understand where you stand on this:

you're saying it's ice crystals floating around, that are so out of focus they appear circular and notched ?

Am I correct?

I just wanna be clear as to not presume something you didn't say...

Why dont you listen!?
I, and others showed you how this footage has been replicated.
But you still dont listen Have you seen the examples of people
who have taken photos of an out of focus object, that look exactly
the same as the tether objects. Are these photos huge ufos too?

Also, like i said to you in another post. If these are huge disc shaped
objects, why do we see them from the same angle? If disc shaped
ufos appeared over say london, they would look different, depending
the angle you are viewing them from. The same applies to the tether
footge,but we see them from the same angle.

First people said you can clearly see the objects go behind the
tether. This has been proven to be an illusion, as a few people
have replicated the footage. Then we have disc shaped objects
that look exactly the same as an out of focus object close to
the camera, notches and all.

But people like you will refuse to change your mind. While ufo
believers like me just want to know what these ufos are, and will
admit if we are wrong. Hardcore believers like you just cant do that.

You might think you are doing a service to this subject, but hardcore
believers and debunkers make the subject a joke!

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So just to understand where you stand on this:

you're saying it's ice crystals floating around, that are so out of focus they appear circular and notched ?

Am I correct?

I just wanna be clear as to not presume something you didn't say...

Yes, Ice crystals, particulates, etc. In the STS-75 video.

But there are still some things that don't fit, at least on the face of it. The dark spot at 4.53 on the video I posted is in front of an out of focus object disc, and so even nearer, or on or in, the camera. It may or may not be moving. But again, on the face of it, the dark spot does not appear to be subject to the same out of focus rules as the object disc, it is a defined black dot.

reply to post by smurfy


Considering how zoomed in the video is at that point, it could literally be nothing more than a speck of dust on the eye piece, etc.

What I think you'll find even more interesting is how this one looks from 5:05 to 5:09. It's starts to loose it's round shape, as it leaves the FOV. This "squishing" that photographed objects get when they get to the edge of the screen.

Here's the video stabilized by LunaCognita ....


UFO above Moon - Stabilized at 100 and 400 percent playback



The enhancement may not reveal much but it does show us how shaky the video really is

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by smurfy

 

Considering how zoomed in the video is at that point, it could literally be nothing more than a speck of dust on the eye piece, etc.

What I think you'll find even more interesting is how this one looks from 5:05 to 5:09. It's starts to loose it's round shape, as it leaves the FOV. This "squishing" that photographed objects get when they get to the edge of the screen.

Yes, I had already seen that, it brings the things down to something comparable to realistic size, but also where they, (in some cases, not all) become wrigglers, instead of pulsators. Re; the dark spot, not sure about the speck of dust idea.

it Came From Uranus . when under a lot of pressure seems to send out brain fart chem waves . .
causing humans to grab cameras and video tape things they beleave are beyond explanation.

but little do we know of the ULFR (unidentfiied Lens Flare Craft ) where dose it come from .Why are they here ....in my camera ...and Do they have us under sum kind of mindcontrol?...WE need Answer ....

Originally posted by hakalugie4u
it Came From Uranus . when under a lot of pressure seems to send out brain fart chem waves . .
causing humans to grab cameras and video tape things they beleave are beyond explanation.

but little do we know of the ULFR (unidentfiied Lens Flare Craft ) where dose it come from .Why are they here ....in my camera ...and Do they have us under sum kind of mindcontrol?...WE need Answer ....

Yeah right! Thing is, the STS75 was an electrodynamic experiment that didn't quite work out, it fried. I'm sure NASA has some resolution, or alternative to that in regard to some kind of free energy to enable satellites to maintain orbit.

Originally posted by JimOberg
STS-75 'Notched Disk' UFO seen orbiting Moon

start vid @ 52 sec

Originally posted by easynow


Here's the video stabilized by LunaCognita ....


UFO above Moon - Stabilized at 100 and 400 percent playback

The enhancement may not reveal much but it does show us how shaky the video really is

Yes it does, It also shows that we are looking at a picture of the moon, the only thing that doesn't move.

reply to post by JimOberg


Yep, this one guy simply pulls out his gear and UFO's appear and do a show for him. I buy that

It of course always pays to view the other video's they have uploaded I think. Hoaxers are incredibly obvious taking that simple step.

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So just to understand where you stand on this:

you're saying it's ice crystals floating around, that are so out of focus they appear circular and notched ?

Am I correct?

I just wanna be clear as to not presume something you didn't say...

Why dont you listen!?
I, and others showed you how this footage has been replicated.
But you still dont listen

Have you seen the examples of people
who have taken photos of an out of focus object, that look exactly
the same as the tether objects. Are these photos huge ufos too?

Also, like i said to you in another post. If these are huge disc shaped
objects, why do we see them from the same angle? If disc shaped
ufos appeared over say london, they would look different, depending
the angle you are viewing them from. The same applies to the tether
footge,but we see them from the same angle.

First people said you can clearly see the objects go behind the
tether. This has been proven to be an illusion, as a few people
have replicated the footage. Then we have disc shaped objects
that look exactly the same as an out of focus object close to
the camera, notches and all.

But people like you will refuse to change your mind. While ufo
believers like me just want to know what these ufos are, and will
admit if we are wrong. Hardcore believers like you just cant do that.

You might think you are doing a service to this subject, but hardcore
believers and debunkers make the subject a joke!

edit on 13-6-2012 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)

Thank you for this analysis. You obviously got it figured out. I hope I'm not too much of a burden to guys like you...the real UFO hunters.

If you guys are right...NASA or anybody...should be able to reproduce this at will. Since it's
"obviously" ice particles, zoomed in greatly and out of focus...

Jim Oberg will tell you that you can often see Ice particles from space shuttle missions, they are flying around. So why not do it now...? Take out your scopes, point them to the ISS, I'm sure there are ice particles out there. Zoom in at it and show me...notched circular donuts...flying at different speeds, sizes and directions. Please, don't show me videos where one guy reproduces one donut with a fishing line. That's not proof. That's a prepared demonstration with the help of additional tools. Not actually the same. Take a scope, point it to space and do it.
This isn't some exotic animal, it's ice crystals. They are often around our equipment up there apparently. There should be no problem reproducing this, since we know "everything" about how this effect happens.

If you can't reproduce something as "mundane" as this...than you have no case. You can reproduce many parts of the tether incident, but you can't reproduce all the effects together.

To further explain to you what is my drive here...you seem to think I'm some hard core UFO freak...well...actually I'm not claiming those are UFO's in a true sense of the word, I'm just claiming that bokeh/dust/ice explanation does not fly. You can not reproduce it in it's exact form. Not even near. Bokeh examples I've seen are ridiculous, and look nothing like the notched donut.

I just want real proof...not some half-assed letsgetthis#offourbacks explanation.

But since you are convinced, there is no point for you to engage in this debate with me, since I need more proof before I believe it. Any you can't provide any more that already presented.

Difference between you and me is that you will take any authorities word on it, and call it case closed, even though it's far from really proven.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

If you guys are right...NASA or anybody...should be able to reproduce this at will. Since it's
"obviously" ice particles, zoomed in greatly and out of focus...

Jim Oberg will tell you that you can often see Ice particles from space shuttle missions, they are flying around. So why not do it now...? Take out your scopes, point them to the ISS, I'm sure there are ice particles out there. Zoom in at it and show me...notched circular donuts...flying at different speeds, sizes and directions. Please, don't show me videos where one guy reproduces one donut with a fishing line. That's not proof. That's a prepared demonstration with the help of additional tools. Not actually the same. Take a scope, point it to space and do it.
This isn't some exotic animal, it's ice crystals. They are often around our equipment up there apparently. There should be no problem reproducing this, since we know "everything" about how this effect happens.

If you can't reproduce something as "mundane" as this...than you have no case. You can reproduce many parts of the tether incident, but you can't reproduce all the effects together.

Your statement of "Take out your scopes, point them to the ISS, I'm sure there are ice particles out there. Zoom in at it and show me...notched circular donuts...flying at different speeds, sizes and directions.", shows that you really do not understand how telescopes work.

Ice particles floating around the ISS would not be visible from ground based telescopes here on Earth. They are simply way too small to see from here.

Your statement also shows you are still not understanding why the ice particles up there would be seen as I've shown while looking through reflective based telescopes. I'll try again to make you understand:

The telescope in the STS video is focused on the tether which is very far away. The ice particles are only a few feet from the opening of the telescope. To see the same thing in a reflecting telescope, you would have to have it focused on a object very far away, and have something either bright, or reflecting a lot of light pass within a few feet of the opening of the telescope.

We can't replicate the EXACT thing you saw in the video because:

1) Were down here, not on the ISS.
2) We don't have ice crystals floating in zero G and a vacuum here.
3) We don't have another giant tether to have drifting away from us.

Your demands are unreasonable and can not be met. Even by a space agency. Even if you'll except no other tether, but just want them to point their camera through a telescope and capture the same out of focus ice crystals, takes away from their time and resources of what they are actually doing up there.

I can replicate parts of it. But I'm also at the mercy of the weather, which was overcast last night. I had nothing I could point my telescope to. But if your attitude is going to be "You have to replicate it just like it was, by being in space with ice crystals." why should I waste my time and effort? If I replicate what you see (showing that very small objects close to a reflecting telescope that is focused on a very far away object will produce the same out of focus artifacts), but you state before I even do this, that you're not going to believe it anyway, why should I even bother?

STS 75 ufo's were nothing more than small little objects floating around the shuttle, only meters or tens of metters away, which appear as defocused discs, bokeh. Also, they follows simple mathematical (or optical) rules of bokeh... size, shape, and their relation with the position in the frame etc
Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
i put a lot of effort to explain all the characteristics seen, to replicate some of them, and to many people which really understand optics, photography and how the image is formed or recorded, is very simple to understand the explanation....people like "eriktheawful" here which i see he knows the principles involved. For those which don't know that topic, they should read it...a lot of questions which are still made, are answered there.

what were they: most probable those boring and trivial ice or debris particles generated by the shuttle activities, but only pushed as "super-stars of the show" by the ilumination and filming condition at those moments.

As for the OP clip..maybe is only a video made with the purpose to test the opinion of (new) people on this old ideea of critters/ufo's (maybe with notches) flying in the skies... which in my opinion is a dead horse riding.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Jim Oberg will tell you that you can often see Ice particles from space shuttle missions, they are flying around. So why not do it now...? Take out your scopes, point them to the ISS, I'm sure there are ice particles out there. Zoom in at it and show me...notched circular donuts...flying at different speeds, sizes and directions. Please, don't show me videos where one guy reproduces one donut with a fishing line. That's not proof. That's a prepared demonstration with the help of additional tools. Not actually the same. Take a scope, point it to space and do it.
This isn't some exotic animal, it's ice crystals. They are often around our equipment up there apparently. There should be no problem reproducing this, since we know "everything" about how this effect happens.

If you can't reproduce something as "mundane" as this...than you have no case. You can reproduce many parts of the tether incident, but you can't reproduce all the effects together. .....

Difference between you and me is that you will take any authorities word on it, and call it case closed, even though it's far from really proven.

Mario, the difference is, some people are capable of learning from their mistakes, and from the mistakes of others, and some people just aren't -- and stubbornly stick to their original misunderstandings.

If there was often -- not always, but often -- ice and other dandruff floating around space shuttles, which used fuel cells for power and thus generated water as a waste product, and used bipropellant thrusters with often leaky valves for attitude control, how in the known universe can you demand the same effect be shown for a space station which uses solar panels for power, doesn't dump surplus water, and uses electrically powered flywheels for attitude control so doesn't as a rule use thrusters [the Russian end has some for emergency use when the flywheels aren't working].

How can you possibly imagine the situations should be identical?

You keep tripping your own arguments up by your lack of basic knowledge of the subject you are proclaiming about. Worse than a lack of knowledge, you do possess quasi-knowledge -- what you seem to think you know, is already wrong.

And you seem to defiantly resist any corrective information from anybody.

In other words, you're a perfect UFO buff.

But we need real UFO enthusiasts with factual foundations to grapple with what is a real puzzle.

You're not helping. Please open your mind, push OUT the misinformation, let some reality in, and become helpful.

Lots of people have walked this route before. but many do become stuck where you are now.