More NASA UFO's?

[psyche101]

Well if you are convinced by that then I think I've got my real answer.

When did you ask if I was convinced? When was that the question?

I cannot put it better than 747400, that is the best call I have heard all day. I'm going to call it a night.

[bee]

Hey Synch, ...getting a little carried away with the condemnation of a man and his 'alternative-take on the incident' , without really knowing who the man is, or what his true thoughts of the possible identities of the anomalies, ..aren't we?

You should recall that from my opening comments to the post, that as I said that "I didn't really have any major problems in accepting the ice/debris theory" [bruce Maccabee's positive nod in that direction is almost enough for me!]...But it seems that I am not as certain that we have the 'definitive answer' to this amazing bit of anomalous nasa filming, and am always open to considering another possibility!...And though my intention in posting the link was for 'light consideration only',...I was waiting for the part when someone reached the crux of Zimmerman's motives for disproving the ice/debris theory....which is that 'Chris Zimmerman's' contention that the anomalies filmed in the STS 75 video are in fact ..."Living Orgaisms'...or "Energyzoa" to be precise !....

http://www.tarrdanie.../energyzoa.html

...Which, whilst I find 'pretty bonkers'....I thought was an 'interesting but light' theoretical-direction to travel for a few posts or so!

Cheers .

that link is interesting 1963.....thanks for that!

'Energyzoa' mmmmmmmm...definately something to consider regarding the Tether Incident...IMO..

.

[zoser]

You mean someone who knows all about (i.e. believes unquestioningly) that UFOs are Extraterrestrial spacecraft, rather than, say, an expert in spaceflight? Ok..

I really don't believe that is the case. SF's scientic credentials will stand alongside anybodies. He puts forward strong rational cases for his assertions. He is a realist, and not a confessed skeptic.

He is skeptical about some things and keeps a balanced outlook. He is to my knowledge skeptical about Corso and Lazar. I'm not saying I agree with him on this but this nonetheless illustrates his sense of balance.

That was a rash and judgemental post there imho.

Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser

[ChrLzs]

It looks like this, but it's not something I have ever used myself. I have a strong distrust for anyone who would use it to alter UFO pictures.

Prepare to be shocked - I agree with you, MacGuffin. Indeed your example is rather well-chosen (not sure if it was deliberate, though!) - as it very clearly shows that the Neon effect, like the vast majority of such effects, adds much false detail. Look at, for example, the right side of the dome - does the original have that strong, wide line along the curve? Of course it doesn't - the effect adds false detail.

And (Sweetpumper - please use sarcastic smilies - remember there are very gullible folks here..) the Emboss and Fragment and Posterise and..etc.. effects are all just as useless. There are only a very few effects that can be legitimately applied to help 'reveal detail'. Note that I intend to start a thread on this topic soon-ish (if a number of folks ask nicely, it will be sooner than later..) and I'm happy in the meantime to field any questions. This really is a topic I know VERY well, and I'm happy to back that up.

I don't li{k}e ANY of this, don't trust it, and don't like it when anyone uses it for any reason. All of this photo manipulation makes me extremely uncomfortable and reminds me of things the CIA and other intelligence agencies do.

Again, while I dunno about the CIA bit.. , I totally agree - photo manipulation is misinformation, plain and simple. It's *not* genuine investigation, it's the use of 'effects' to enhance what probably are not accurately recorded details in the first place. The very first thing that any genuine forensic investigator would do is to examine the image's provenance to determine how much real detail has actually been captured (by looking at the type of file, the history of the file, the nature of the camera, lens and sensor and the settings used) to then determine what genuinely useful, valid, verifiable and repeatable techniques can be applied to assist in revealing any detail. That process is a world away from amateur researcher wannabes (Maccabees?) playing with Photoshop sliders until you 'get something'. That behavior is the absolute worst kind of Confirmation Bias. (Look it up.)

BTW, in regard to these ridiculous claims about the 'shape' of the bokeh blobs, look carefully at this image of a lens - notice anything vaguely familiar in the shapes inside it?

And here's another image showing what happens when lenses that have internal obstructions and odd aperture shapes look at anything bright and defocused:

and then what happens as it changes aperture:

Those images come from this thread at ATS. All credit to ATS member depthoffield , who is far better at all this than even me..

Note how the 'shapes' change as the lens aperture is altered. The shapes are NOT real objects, or real shapes (of objects in front of the camera)!!!! They cannot possibly be used - especially with randomly chosen additive/destructive filters - to reveal detail. They are optical artefacts and have no relevance to the real world whatsoever. Anyone with a passing knowledge of photography should know that - the term 'lens flare' is only laughed at by those completely ignorant of cameras and lenses.

What astounds me is that those who push this rubbish didn't take even a few moments to think about why the shapes all look so similar, and had apparently never seen (nor understood) bokeh .. yet had the temerity to display their ignorance before the eagerly awaiting, gullible, ufo=alien crowd..

Edited October 30, 2012 by Chrlzs

[bee]

.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong..but I seem to recall that it was filmed in the Ultra Violet spectrum...?

here's a detail from the footage...one of the chuggy things touched another 'thing'...

[media=]

[/media]

Chrlzs....do you have anything to say about the screen shot I took from the video above..?

and also

do you have an interpretation of what I call 'the chuggy things' that move around ...?

to isolate one of them in particular...at 5:16...in the vid above, one of them goes across the bottom of the screen, from left to right.....

cheers

.

[zoser]

Prepare to be shocked - I agree with you, MacGuffin. Indeed your example is rather well-chosen (not sure if it was deliberate, though!) - as it very clearly shows that the Neon effect, like the vast majority of such effects, adds much false detail. Look at, for example, the right side of the dome - does the original have that strong, wide line along the curve? Of course it doesn't - the effect adds false detail.

And (Sweetpumper - please use sarcastic smilies - remember there are very gullible folks here..) the Emboss and Fragment and Posterise and..etc.. effects are all just as useless. There are only a very few effects that can be legitimately applied to help 'reveal detail'. Note that I intend to start a thread on this topic soon-ish (if a number of folks ask nicely, it will be sooner than later..) and I'm happy in the meantime to field any questions. This really is a topic I know VERY well, and I'm happy to back that up.

Again, while I dunno about the CIA bit.. , I totally agree - photo manipulation is misinformation, plain and simple. It's *not* genuine investigation, it's the use of 'effects' to enhance what probably are not accurately recorded details in the first place. The very first thing that any genuine forensic investigator would do is to examine the image's provenance to determine how much real detail has actually been captured (by looking at the type of file, the history of the file, the nature of the camera, lens and sensor and the settings used) to then determine what genuinely useful, valid, verifiable and repeatable techniques can be applied to assist in revealing any detail. That process is a world away from amateur researcher wannabes (Maccabees?) playing with Photoshop sliders until you 'get something'. That behavior is the absolute worst kind of Confirmation Bias. (Look it up.)

BTW, in regard to these ridiculous claims about the 'shape' of the bokeh blobs, look carefully at this image of a lens - notice anything vaguely familiar in the shapes inside it?

And here's another image showing what happens when lenses that have internal obstructions and odd aperture shapes look at anything bright and defocused:

and then what happens as it changes aperture:

Those images come from this thread at ATS. All credit to ATS member depthoffield , who is far better at all this than even me..

Note how the 'shapes' change as the lens aperture is altered. The shapes are NOT real objects, or real shapes (of objects in front of the camera)!!!! They cannot possibly be used - especially with randomly chosen additive/destructive filters - to reveal detail. They are optical artefacts and have no relevance to the real world whatsoever. Anyone with a passing knowledge of photography should know that - the term 'lens flare' is only laughed at by those completely ignorant of cameras and lenses.

What astounds me is that those who push this rubbish didn't take even a few moments to think about why the shapes all look so similar, and had apparently never seen (nor understood) bokeh .. yet had the temerity to display their ignorance before the eagerly awaiting, gullible, ufo=alien crowd..

I think you are completely on the wrong lines here Chris. People are using IR night vision equipment and seeing what looks to me like similar objects.

Take a look at this:

There is a thread just started looking into this phenomena. There is a good chance that this may well be what the 'tether objects' are.

[bee]

Note how the 'shapes' change as the lens aperture is altered. The shapes are NOT real objects, or real shapes (of objects in front of the camera)!!!! They cannot possibly be used - especially with randomly chosen additive/destructive filters - to reveal detail. They are optical artefacts and have no relevance to the real world whatsoever. Anyone with a passing knowledge of photography should know that - the term 'lens flare' is only laughed at by those completely ignorant of cameras and lenses.

why do the 'shapes' move around in different directions... when the camera isn't moving....as in the tether footage?

surely lens flare wouldn't do this?

.

Edited October 30, 2012 by bee

[synchronomy]

Sorry to throw a Molotov Cocktail in here guys, but these objects really don't look like ice crystals to me.

Would anyone care to justify this claim?

Which objects are you referring to specifically? I think we've established the airy discs are optics of the camera.

EDIT: Maybe I replied too soon to this without reading the newer posts. It appears you are referring to the airy discs and other bits in the NASA Shuttle footage?

Zoser, I feel it's important to remember that before NASA sends video feeds out to "Joe Public" domain, there is ALWAYS a human being (possibly more) studying the live downlink who has a finger on a kill switch at all times. If they thought for 1 second that pulsating blobs were of ET origins we would never see it until at least a commitee of NASA's finest came to some conclusion about it.

Granted, the video filtering could have missed something at some point, but I can't believe that NASA would have missed the volume of video showing blibs and blobs which is currently available on Youtube and elsewhere.

I'm satisfied with using "big picture" subjective analysis on most NASA footage.

Edited October 30, 2012 by synchronomy

[bee]

Which objects are you referring to specifically? I think we've established the airy discs are optics of the camera.

but 'we' haven't established that all the 'anomalies' on the tether footage are airy discs.

[synchronomy]

but 'we' haven't established that all the 'anomalies' on the tether footage are airy discs.

I realize that. I refer to them as bits and blobs.

I am open to ideas that they are other than ice or other debris, however the explanations presented thus far have satisfied me that they are nothing more.

My thoughts are that very close particles appear as airy discs, futher away they appear as blobs, and further yet they are bits...lol

It's not scientific and I don't mean to imply it as such.

Not sure if you've seen this video, personally I dismiss it as debris. Althought it appears like a high concentration of debris, remember the camera is peering through a large volume of space to zoom in on the tether. Add to that the blurring of the night vision:

[bee]

Which objects are you referring to specifically? I think we've established the airy discs are optics of the camera.

EDIT: Maybe I replied too soon to this without reading the newer posts. It appears you are referring to the airy discs and other bits in the NASA Shuttle footage?

Zoser, I feel it's important to remember that before NASA sends video feeds out to "Joe Public" domain, there is ALWAYS a human being (possibly more) studying the live downlink who has a finger on a kill switch at all times. If they thought for 1 second that pulsating blobs were of ET origins we would never see it until at least a commitee of NASA's finest came to some conclusion about it.

Granted, the video filtering could have missed something at some point, but I can't believe that NASA would have missed the volume of video showing blibs and blobs which is currently available on Youtube and elsewhere.

I'm satisfied with using "big picture" subjective analysis on most NASA footage.

the problem with what you have said, above...is that it wasn't NASA that sent feeds out to Joe Public....

It was Martyn Stubbs who released it into the public domain...He managed a Community Access Cable Station in Vancouver, Canada...

http://www.youtube.c...tnasaman/videos

Martyn Stubbs is secretnasaman & these are videos produced, directed, edited or shot by me, Martyn Stubbs. All UFO clips are from my NASA UFO Archives, containing all downloaded video from mission STS-48 to STS-80, where I "discovered" all the NASA UFO video, including the STS-75 "tether" footage.

and here's the first part of an interview where he talks about obtaining (what would have been secret) footage

[media=]

[/media]

.

[synchronomy]

I familiar with Martyn Stubbs.

I'll try to find you the source information about the video downlinks.

[zoser]

Which objects are you referring to specifically? I think we've established the airy discs are optics of the camera.

EDIT: Maybe I replied too soon to this without reading the newer posts. It appears you are referring to the airy discs and other bits in the NASA Shuttle footage?

Zoser, I feel it's important to remember that before NASA sends video feeds out to "Joe Public" domain, there is ALWAYS a human being (possibly more) studying the live downlink who has a finger on a kill switch at all times. If they thought for 1 second that pulsating blobs were of ET origins we would never see it until at least a commitee of NASA's finest came to some conclusion about it.

Granted, the video filtering could have missed something at some point, but I can't believe that NASA would have missed the volume of video showing blibs and blobs which is currently available on Youtube and elsewhere.

I'm satisfied with using "big picture" subjective analysis on most NASA footage.

I'm referring to the hundreds of small circular objects that were visible during the tether incident. I recall watching several minutes of the clip and the controller asked the astronaut if he could see the objects in the background.

Again I don't wish to take a contrary view for the sake of it, but I just don't see that these effects were camera aberrations. Just to clarify the objects I am referring to are in Bee's post number 346 and your post 385.

Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser

[JimOberg]

Sorry to throw a Molotov Cocktail in here guys, but these objects really don't look like ice crystals to me.

Would anyone care to justify this claim?

The first step to assess and evaluate these kinds of videos is to really know what ice in space DOES look like, and what kinds of prosaic phenomena are there, as candidates to explain strange videos.

Zoser, i've seen no indication you have any clue about what is 'normal' for space visual phenomena, or what ice flakes in space look like.

You're basically arguing from self-imposed ignorance.

what have you done to enhance your knowledge of what space stuff looks like?

what have you done to get a clue about lighting and shadowing in space -- such as the STS-48 video you posted. What is the lighting situation there? Day or night? Where are shadows being cast, where is light streaming from?

I wrote the '99 FAQs' to try to give folks who are not spaceflight professionals a better idea of what kind of stuff is out there and what it looks like.

I hope you take the opportunity to read it.

It won't rot your mind.

Edited October 30, 2012 by JimOberg

[synchronomy]

I'm referring to the hundreds of small circular objects that were visible during the tether incident. I recall watching several minutes of the clip and the controller asked the astronaut if he could see the objects in the background.

Again I don't wish to take a contrary view for the sake of it, but I just don't see that these effects were camera aberrations. Just to clarify the objects I am referring to are in Bee's post number 346 and your post 385.

I viewed both posts again. I'm satisfied that the airy discs, blibs, and blobs are ice particles or other debris. It seems to have been well established what is causing the airy disc appearance. refer to the 1:00 mark of the video below, which shows that object bearing no resemblance to airy discs, appear as such through the camera. Bee's post #346 seems to show pictures of airy discs.

The movement of the particles has been explained by the expanding exhaust from the shuttles manoevering rockets. The pulsating is an artifact of the camera, probably influenced by the night vision.

[zoser]

to really know what ice in space DOES look like, and what kinds of prosaic phenomena are there, as candidates to explain strange videos.

Zoser, i've seen no indication you have any clue about what is 'normal' for space visual phenomena, or what ice flakes in space look like.

You're basically arguing from self-imposed ignorance.

what have you done to enhance your knowledge of what space stuff looks like?

what have you done to get a clue about lighting and shadowing in space -- such as the STS-48 video you posted. What is the lighting situation there? Day or night? Where are shadows being cast, where is light streaming from?

I wrote the '99 FAQs' to try to give folks who are not spaceflight professionals a better idea of what kind of stuff is out there and what it looks like.

I hope you take the opportunity to read it.

It won't rot your mind.

I really don't think you or anyone else has the slightest idea of what those objects are. The process of investigation is always healthy and one can always learn more about anything.

People are observing things from down on the ground using IR or night vision equipment and are sometimes seeing things similar. Multiple objects floating around even colliding circular in shape and pulsating. This is one direction of investigation.

This is what it needs; an investigation taking into account all different possibilities. A bit different to claiming it's all ice with absolute authority.

[JimOberg]

I've posted quite a few clips of unidentified objects that neither you or anyone else here have succeeded in explaining. Objects materialising, and changing trajectory..

If by 'succeeded' you mean convincing YOU, than of course we can't argue -- you have accepted NO explanations, either posted here or elsewhere on the Internet over the years. You have been resolutely blind to any and all attempts at prosaic explanations based on your absolute ZERO knowledge of spaceflight realities.

Example: your repeated unjustifiable claim that objects materialize. All you know is, they become visible. It's also possible they just become sunlit.

To examine and weigh this possibility, you need to know the basics about illumination in space and near a large spacecraft. So far, you have steadfastly refused to even TRY to understand that fundamental feature..

Edited October 30, 2012 by JimOberg

[zoser]

To examine and weigh this possibility, you need to know the basics about illumination in space and near a large spacecraft. So far, you have steadfastly refused to even TRY to understand that fundamental feature..

How do you know the objects were near? What frame of reference is there?

[JimOberg]

Just what I suspected all along. The skeptics have absolutely nothing and no way of explaining these phenomena. I have given the people here very opportunity to answer and all that comes back is derision, vagueness, condescension and referral to even more vagueness.

Didn't you find the discussion of pulsation -- AGC cycling, the camera guys in the MCC called it -- in my 99 FAQs and in the console operating procedure handbook for the on-board cameras -- on my website?

Or do you demand a one-on-one remedial tutorial with the pre-ordained, announced intention of never believing it anyway?

Edited October 30, 2012 by JimOberg

[zoser]

Didn't you find the discussion of pulsation -- AGC cycling, the camera guys in the MCC called it -- in my 99 FAQs and in the console operating procedure handbook for the on-board cameras -- on my website?

Or do you demand a one-on-one remedial tutorial with the pre-ordained, announced intention of never believing it anyway?

Is it a pay per view website or something? Is there a concise answer to the question? That's all I asked. Why keep referring people to another website?

[zoser]

Has anyone asked the obvious question? Why are these particles of ice notched with a hole in the centre?

[JimOberg]

Zoser, I feel it's important to remember that before NASA sends video feeds out to "Joe Public" domain, there is ALWAYS a human being (possibly more) studying the live downlink who has a finger on a kill switch at all times.

and the source of your absolute knowledge of the truth of this allegation is -- richard hoagland??

[zoser]

and the source of your absolute knowledge of the truth of this allegation is -- richard hoagland??

Methinks if you knew the answer (see my last post) you would happily disclose it instead of playing games.

It's a bit like courtship really isn't it?

Come on don't be bashful, tell us all.

Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser

[mcrom901]

jim, i've tried asking you this a few times.... but have always failed at getting you to respond somehow... your 'no-ufo' stance seems to totally discount the uap phenomenon, and that you never touch that subject... so, i will ask you once again... do you 'believe' that there is such a thing as an atmospheric plasma phenomenon? if yes, then what are your thoughts about the possibility of a similar phenomenon in our ionosphere?

[mcrom901]

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/booNyzarC/booNyHumor/BokehRattanFurniture.jpg