Yes! I debunked .... MYSELF!

First, I messed up my original account and had to create a new one. Previously I was posting as "WaitingForGodot", now I'm "StillWaitingForGodot".

Under the previous account I made a post about some stuff that I thought was compelling. One part of the post had to do with sightings on earth that seemed to share some characteristics with the STS 75 tether things. Because I thought it was a cool idea I started to look around to see how many ground-based sightings I could find that shared the same characteristics.

Guess what? I found dozens of them. I viewed hours and hours of videos, capturing clips and stills for a follow-up post. However some of the new clips seemed a little off. They showed the same "things" in terms of concentric colored circles, but also showed some different shapes that I thought might be lens anomalies. I made some notes to talk to my pro photographer brother about lens mechanics, but was only slightly deterred.

Then I came across the two videos below. They convinced me that most of the things I was collecting were lens artifacts. There was something there, probably a standard "bright light" UFO in the sky, but when the observer zooms in too far you end up with a thing called an "airy disc" that displays the pattern I found so interesting. I won't go into all the details. See the links if you want more info.

BTW - both of these guys are annoyingly condescending, but they made their point.

Go to 5:04 in this vid to see the "Airy disk" example.

So, I've learned a lesson about "seeing what you're looking for"! All that being said, I'm still looking at some other aspects of the original post which are not "airy disks". Also, I don't think STS 75 contained "Airy disks", but that's for another post!

In case you're curious, I made a collage of a few of my "finds" (I had to do YouTube cuz I can't figure out how to do images on ATS - WTH??)

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

Download image to device. Then click the downward arrow then select upload. Click the search files button and find the image in your device. Then click the upload button to add it to your ATS images.

Once you've done that, click the image you want to use and then copy the image URL to use in post. BBL code?

After that just paste the image into your post.

It sounds complicated but it really isn't once you've figured it out.

Not the best guide but it's the general gist of it.

I hope it helps.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Thanks Wide-Eyes, I appreciate the directions. Cheers!

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

You're welcome. I'm not sure about the tether incident/airy disks etc but the shapes seem to move without the camera moving so I'm not entirely convinced about camera artifacts.

We should all try our best to debunk ourselves, unless we just like to have fun playing with the concepts.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Yeah, I wasn't too clear. I think a LOT of UFOs that are visible as bright lights are just that, UFOs (not streetlights or planes for example.) They may move independently, or have other characteristics that show they are not JUST camera artifacts.

What I am saying is that a lot of those lights, when the observer zooms in, end up looking like "Airy disks" on film. There's probably a UFO there, but it does not look like what gets captured by the camera. In fact, I think that's probably true more often than not.

In my case I was looking for a particular type of UFO, meaning I had to be able to see the true structure and not a camera distortion. So, for me, I had to pass on them for my purposes.

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

Also, to be even more clear, I don't think ANY of the STS 75 items are "airy disks". I'm looking at that video in conjunction with others to try and put together a case to that effect.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

The official explanation (with which I agree) states that the objects are small ice crystals around the shuttle, much closer than the tether, so it's natural they were moving in relation to the camera.

The observation that the 'clocking' of the sts-75 notched disks is a simple function of their location in the camera field-of-view nailed them as obvious camera artifacts years ago. For example,
www.youtube.com...

The crew could determine the dots were small nearby ice flakes because they had two eyes and depth perception.

The handheld 70-mm photos they also took nailed the degree of TV camera distortions -- which is why the UFO industry concealed the very existence of those sharper images.

originally posted by: JimOberg
The handheld 70-mm photos they also took nailed the degree of TV camera distortions -- which is why the UFO industry concealed the very existence of those sharper images.

Can we see those photos online?

I thought everybody understood lens artifacts. I have to ask though OP.

How do you explain lens artifacts? Not asking anyone else, I am asking you personally.

My collection of sts-75 resources are here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

Love that book. Or I did at least.

It happens. Being honest and moving forward is great. Better than talent.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I'm not sure what you mean. Lens artifacts are what they are, sometimes they look like UFOs, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get reported as UFO sightings. I don't think they explain all UFO sightings, but they certainly explain some, maybe many. I don't know. One has to use discernment case by case.

If you're asking about STS-75, I don't have any facts or data to back my current opinion. I'm looking at that right now, maybe it turns out that I'm wrong in my feelings about STS-75 like I was about the OP artifacts. However, I think this post proves I'm not blind in my search for the truth - I try the best I can to go where the evidence leads.

Let me know if I missed the point of your question. I'm glad for any input, positive or negative.

a reply to: JimOberg

JimOberg - thanks so much! I've read some of your stuff already but it's awesome to see your own archive!

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

The shape of out of focus highlights depends on a few things including focus, depth of field, position in field of view and the construction of the lens aperture.



Lens flare can also end up as ufo's



Then of course exposure can also make things look different

Is the paper white



or is it black



We have many photographers on here from hobby to semi/pro photographers.

So it usually doesn't take long to explain what people are actually seeing rather than what they want to see.

a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

No doubt that the tether incident was a real event. I don't agree with your assumptions about "airy disks". The tether is too far away so the lens employed to film the tether had to be telescopic. A normal lens would have shown only a light speck. The telephoto len's internal optics/mechanism could have added the disks unusual cutouts to the circle but those disks were out there. It's silly for armap to say they're ice crystals near the shuttle. A telephoto lens wouldn't even see them. And the disks did not behave like real ice crystals which don't have force of travel unless they emanated from a water dump.

Years ago I saw footage on TV (I forgot the topic) but what I saw was a night scene on a curved road. As a car came out of the curve and approached the camera, the car's headlights would form "airy disks" similar to those seen around the tether. So the disks were out there and the shuttle's camera lens messed with the solid circle.

originally posted by: The Shrike
The telephoto len's internal optics/mechanism could have added the disks unusual cutouts to the circle but those disks were out there.

Something was out there, there's no doubt about it, as the camera picked it up. Out of focus or not, the camera didn't create the light sources.

It's silly for armap to say they're ice crystals near the shuttle. A telephoto lens wouldn't even see them.

It's not silly because I say that they were closer than the tether. I may have said "near" in the dozens of posts I have made about the tether incident, but if I did then I should have said "nearer" or "relatively near".

And the disks did not behave like real ice crystals which don't have force of travel unless they emanated from a water dump.

It's true that the crystals don't have any automotive force that makes them travel through space, but as I don't know what external forces were acting on them I cannot really dismiss the possibility of those being ice crystals, things we know were common around the shuttle.

Does that mean that I am sure they were ice crystals? No, it means that I think the ice crystal hypothesis is much more likely than all other hypothesis presented.

a reply to: The Shrike


Shrike, what can we find as an agreed-on starting point?

1. The swarm sequence was FOUR DAYS after the tether broke, so the shuttle had resumed normal water dumps.

Do you agree?

2. The crew could determine small nearby stuff by visual observation using normal depth perception.

Do you agree?

3. The shuttle carried three foreign nationals not subject to US security constraints.

Do you agree?

4. The crew's 70-mm handheld photos showed much sharper images of the distant tether and out-of-focus [therefore within a few tens of feet] dots going by. You have seen these photos, right?

Do you agree?

5. The clocking of the notch[es] on the video images tracks precisely with the location of the circle in the camera's field-of-view

Do you agree?

6. If the TV images reflected actual angular size and passage behind the distant tether, the dots would have been visible from Earth as bigger and brighter than a full moon but nobody reported seeing such objects going overhead.

Do we agree?

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: The Shrike


Shrike, what can we find as an agreed-on starting point?
TS: That the mission took place as described.

1. The swarm sequence was FOUR DAYS after the tether broke, so the shuttle had resumed normal water dumps.

Do you agree?
TS: This is the first time since 1996 that I've seen the four day period mentioned, I must have been out to lunch! As far as the water dumps, the videos I've seen always show the stream shooting away from shuttle and I don't know if the water dump outlets are pointed to the rear or to the sides. I can guess that they aren't pointed out the front.

2. The crew could determine small nearby stuff by visual observation using normal depth perception.

Do you agree?
TS: Yes.

3. The shuttle carried three foreign nationals not subject to US security constraints.

Do you agree?
TS: I'll take your word for it but I don't consider that a factor in light of the event.

4. The crew's 70-mm handheld photos showed much sharper images of the distant tether and out-of-focus [therefore within a few tens of feet] dots going by. You have seen these photos, right?

Do you agree?
TS: I have not seen those photos and I and, I'm sure, others will appreciate a link to view them to form an opinion.

5. The clocking of the notch[es] on the video images tracks precisely with the location of the circle in the camera's field-of-view

Do you agree?
TS: I don't have a problem accepting the camera's mechanics or electronics affecting the image in that manner.

6. If the TV images reflected actual angular size and passage behind the distant tether, the dots would have been visible from Earth as bigger and brighter than a full moon but nobody reported seeing such objects going overhead.

Do we agree?
TS: The various size circular objects, with or without notches, are all over the place travelling in all directions. As the tether cable is seen rolling "up" in a coil you start to see white, "pulsating" "orbs" shooting by the tether. When there is a change in the view the mass of circles become visible. Some, or a lot, of the "orbs" are definitely going by in front of the cable and some are seen going behind it obviously in the distance. Various sizes all moving at different speeds and directions. The visual clues prove this. If you follow a particular circle, it approaches the cable, seems to slide along the edge and then stop! Why was the lens field of view widened and sat on? Were the astronauts/mission control center baffled by mass of circles? A light show, so to speak. There is a lot of dark, out of focus footage. And some bright, pulsating circles just "standing by". A lot of awful footage as if the camera operator was a chimp! Shooting into a bright light that seems to cause extreme brilliant blooming while the cable is just a speck in the distance. This is not worth one American dollar. No wonder the damn thing snapped, incompetents!

Wikipedia
"It remained in orbit for a number of weeks and was easily visible from the ground, appearing something like a small but surprisingly bright fluorescent light traveling through the sky."

Jim, did you look up and see the display? To Forum members: Did any of you look up and see the display?

Wikipedia
"STS-75 mission scientists hoped to deploy the tether to a distance of 20.7 kilometers (12.9 mi). Over 19 kilometers (almost 12 miles) of the tether were deployed before the tether broke."

Jim, in order to see something approximately 12 miles long at a distance of almost 13 miles you'd need one hell of a telephoto lens which obviously the shuttle was equipped with. At that distance nearby or even far away ice crystals that are traveling at ejected speed in a straight path would not be in focus.

Wikipedia
"The TSS-1R mission was a reflight of TSS-1 which was flown onboard Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-46 in July/August 1992. The Tether Satellite System circled the Earth at an altitude of 296 kilometers (183.926 miles)"

Jim: Since STS-75 was a reflight, is there video footage of the first flight? If yes, where can one view it.

I hope the Wikipedia info is correct, if not, would you offer corrections?

Jim: Here's a little treat. In the first photo we see the cable and a white circular light on its right. In the second photo taken a few seconds after the first, 2 additional circular light (above the cable and on its left) "materialize" and the 3 lights start to drift up. The one on the right was stationary until the other 2 "showed up".