NASA STS-75 Tether "UFOs"? from the new guy. The American Roadwarrior

[Littleenki]

AW, as for the "question" posed earlier, within your second page post....does not the plethora of replies here exhibit some sort of "answer" to your question?

If not, perhaps you should rethink your idea of what you, indicated by your harsh youtube comments, seem to consider to be empirical proof. Your differing state of treatment of those who question you on youtube shows you are holding back here, and certainly are showing a defined double personality.

Or, are you just behaving here until you see fit to lash out and deliver your apparent disdain for anyone who challenges your narrow method of thinking?

Maybe you are in the RIGHT place..finally, and now you re finding that the folks here are a lot less likely to be bullied or convinced in a ham fisted way, and as one who appears to have pride in his beliefs, you reject that subsequent effort to debunk you as a debunker.

It will ultimately lead you down one of two paths..either hermit with a computer and a shell of a real researcher....or someone who realizes that they don't really know it all yet, and how others can be a great help to your attempts to find truth and reality in a cloudy world of mystery these fields are exemplified by.

Your obvious self definition as a debunker, whether admitted or not, shows you are at an exciting point in your research career, regardless of it's age, and soon you will become one of two...a professional debunker, who doesn't see the forest through the trees...or an adept, who uses the opinions of qualified others as information to be applied towards making the best out of your hard work and effort.

Hopefully we can see you on the other side, as you progress on the path of understanding the reality we are immersed in as simple human forms, and how our open-mindedness to mystery and wonder can become a tool for our further progression into a type 1 civilization.

All the best to you in your search for the truth, AW, it truly is a long winding road, and Im sure as a thinker who seems passionate about his field and interests, you will complete the cycle of a soul who seeks the real meat of the matter in each subject they study, and doesn't debunk anything which cannot be empirically proven one way or another...seeing it for the deeper meaning and truth it contains.

Please don't consider this an attack or tongue lashing, as I have no right to deliver such, sometimes these things just must air out to move ahead in our seeming progress through life's conundrums.

Cheers
Le

[hoss58]

Don't know just what 'trick' is used in the video..My personal camera is
attached to an astronomical telescope with focal length of 1900 mm. The
camera ccd size is 7 mm,that gives me 271 x magnification. Many times
the moon will pass behind my unit and a power line. When this
happens, the wire is not visable, though it is 60 feet distance.When the
moon crosses behind a light pole, the pole is not visable, but will
dim or interupt the light from the moon.If I focus on the pole, the moon
is not visable, focus on the moon, pole is not visable.. The video seems
very strange. All my images are taken as video, run through registax.
   Would like to post attachment, but that option is not available
       rubicon

This thread is great , love this kind of disscusion. Rubcon, what you are describing with the focus sounds like what we in the civil engineering  field called  " parallax" or " focusing around an object "  which is a big no no by the instrument man as it gives a false impression that  the line of sight is clear when it really isn't. 

I have observed this effect many times in the field as I was the " instrument man" and it was possible to have an object close to the  transit  go out of view by changing the focus from near to farther away .

[ArMaP]

Many times the moon will pass behind my unit and a power line. When this happens, the wire is not visable, though it is 60 feet distance.When the moon crosses behind a light pole, the pole is not visable, but will dim or interupt the light from the moon.If I focus on the pole, the moon is not visable, focus on the moon, pole is not visable.

What happens if the far away object is not as bright as the closer one?

[The Seeker]

What happens if the far away object is not as bright as the closer one?

Armap, I can't say what happens with focusing a camera, but my experience with a transit is that a bright object closer to the transit than the object of focus tends to make a bright blurry "cloud" that does tend to make taking the shot difficult; you can't see the near object, just the reflected light off it...


seeker

[hoss58]

Armap, I can't say what happens with focusing a camera, but my experience with a transit is that a bright object closer to the transit than the object of focus tends to make a bright blurry "cloud" that does tend to make taking the shot difficult; you can't see the near object, just the reflected light off it...


seeker

I have had  the edge of a tree online (roughly halfway between the transit and the far sight ) go almost all the way gone , just a slight  blur on the edge of the field of view . If the object online is thin enough and the site is far enough away it will go away totally .

[08rubicon]

 hoss and armap;
   What I am trying to say is, that any object close to the lens of a long
telephoto camera, or surveyors scope, will not be visable at the same time
as the distant object. In survey work, the close object must be seen for
safety., in astrophotography, the close object is hopefully not seen. As I
photograph at night, there will not be any bright objects closer than my
target..which will be many miles distant. My camera (scope) does not
focus to infinity.In focus at a star, may not be good focus at the moon.I
can focus past a star or before the star.I hopt I am not confusing you
as much as I do myself..wil not spellcheck this..

[American-Roadwarrior]

Deuem is having an ODD moment.

If a camera is set on infinity, then the focus is at the extreme. When one changes the focus you actually are doing a short zoom, a crop of the original photo, It moves the lenses or electronics inside the camera and you get a crop of the original but in focus.

Thank you for pointing out the focus part.

Now my part! When your video first starts up they are at some 80 nautical miles apart, even further than I wrote before. So what we are seeing is the lens set at infinity which is focused past the tether. Nice camera set up. I want one...

All lenses in the camera are at the extreme mode. They can only be moved in to focus.

So IMHO, it looks like most of the Ice Critters are even further away than I thought they were. They are in focus at the infinity level of that camera. Every lens setup has its own max. Infinity is just a word used in the camera game meaning what ever it can see. Each lens made has a different infinity level. 

When they did a focus, the tether gets larger as it should ( it cropped the picture ) and all the ice critters got smaller as they should. Meaning the lens pulled in to focus on the tether and that pushed the critters farther away in focus making them smaller. If the critters were on this side of the focus they too would have gotten a lot larger. The focus had to be set past the tether to start with because it got larger in the cropped focus. If the focus was on this side to start with the tether would have gotten smaller in the crop but in focus. If you pulled the focus into 30 feet, you would never see the tether at all. Maybe some lights in the back ground.

Using your logic that any simpleton who understands focus can work this out, I think I just did.

I think you should read the camera thread and do some more research on focus and let me know what you find.

The focal plane is the focal plane no matter how it is diced.

And that is what I think happens..... Deuem

I see that you are one of the only people here who actually follows directions, Thank you Deuem, I greatly appreciate that.

Focus on your average camera has several digit settings from zero to 30 feet and then anything beyound 30 feet it at it's full extreme on the infinity setting. Now if I'm reading you right, you are making the claim that the focus adjustment is discerning the difference between 8o miles away and further (behind the tether). I'm sorry but I cannot follow your logic.
The only focus difference on the camera would be between anything far away at infinity and anything within 30 feet.
There is no way on the focus dial to focus on objects 80 miles away and further, they all focus on infinity.

Thank you again for following my instructions, I have yet to read more posts to see if anyone else can follow instructions,
Eric, The American Roadwarrior

[08rubicon]

  Hi A-R;
      You stated that the average camera has several digital settings from 30 ft.
to infinity, and in your origional post you stated that the lens used was
catadioptic..This a mirror lens similar to my schmidt-cassegrain telescope.
The catadioptic is not your average digital camera lens. Please explain to
me the digital focus arangement on a cat lens.
    rubicon

[zorgon]

So... which camera exactly was used for this tether video?

Do we have the details and specs from NASA?

Now lets put this CARP to rest...

At 1:16 in the tether video when they are focusing on the tether shortly after it broke we see bokeh artifacts as they focus... they are CLEARLY HEXAGONAL... and more important they are all aligned in the same axis no matter where they are on the frame



So how does the same camera change the shape of it's lens artifacts later in the video? 

Here is one big Critter. If you watch this one in the video it moves in an ARC curved trajectory across the end of the tether and then changes directions and moves DOWN the screen. The cameraman zooms out at that point to follow it.

When we fisrt see this Critter enter it has ONE NOTCH on top, then develops a second one on the bottom and then the top one goes away. At the same time others in the images have notches in different positions



Considering the FACT that the bokehs created by this camera are HEXAGONAL and ALL THE SAME ANGLE (looking at the capture at 1:16) is is obvious to any rational being that they are not the same thing



Case closed They are NOT camera artifacts...   

[The Matrix Traveller]

Your right on the nail there Z, as you put it "Critters" are NOT "Bokeh".

It appears a little more research is required, IMHO.

As I said previously there is more interest within the NASA, than the general public give credit for,
as Z has Correctly pointed out, "Critters" are NOT "Bokeh".

Z has presented some excellent posts in the past regarding "Critters", well worth reading IMO....

Bokeh;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

[undo11]

I see that you are one of the only people here who actually follows directions

i don't see the point in answering your questions about the camera since z just showed what the bokeh look like and they don't look like the plasma "critters"

[deuem]

I got it,

They are "Bokeh ice critters",  sounds like "Broken Ice Critters".

Nice job Z, love the split planes on one photo...I will have to try this some time.

[zorgon]

It appears a little more research is required, IMHO.

Always

As I said previously there is more interest within the NASA, than the general public give credit for,

Yes to be fair... NASA does actually study plasma life forms   but I guess its not so much in the public news...

have a look at this... posted on How Stuff Works... a site that tends to reach the average public

When plasma comes into contact with a dust cloud, dust particles gather an electric charge by sucking up electrons from the surrounding plasma. This core of electrons in turn pulls in positively charged ions, forming plasma crystals. In the scientists' simulations, which were performed on the International Space Station and in a zero-gravity environment at a German research facility, the plasma crystals sometimes developed into corkscrew shapes or even the double-helix shape of DNA. These helix-shaped crystals retain an electric charge and show what the researchers called a self-organizing ability.

Once in helix form, the crystals can reproduce by diving into two identical helixes, displaying "memory marks" on their structures [source: New Journal of Physics]. The diameter of the helixes varies throughout the structure and the arrangement of these various sections is replicated in other crystals, passing on what could be called a form of genetic code.

They even seem to evolve. The formations become sturdier over time as weaker structures break down and disappear.

Are we looking for aliens in the wrong places?

So here we have NASA 'creating' plasma life forms on the ISS

Slowly main stream science is coming around to consider, study and even create plasma life forms. In fact a google search produces millions of results.

One of the first was Jay Alfred, about a year after I started talking about 'Critters'


Plasma life forms
Posted on Monday, 12 November, 2007

Life-Like Qualities of Plasma: Bohm, a leading expert in twentieth century plasma physics, observed in amazement that once electrons were in plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were a part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although the individual movements of each electron appeared to be random, vast numbers of electrons were able to produce collective effects that were surprisingly well organized and appeared to behave like a life form. The plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism, like the unicellular amoeba, might encase a foreign substance in a cyst. So amazed was Bohm by these life-like qualities that he later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the electron sea was "alive" and that plasma possessed some of the traits of living things. The debate on the existence of plasma-based life forms has been going on for more than 20 years ever since some models showed that plasma can mimic the functions of a primitive cell.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=111062

The Russians have also studied this in space and you can see the double Helix forming at about 4:00

Plasma in space experiment (English subtitles)

[zorgon]

And don't forget that Gene Roddenberry first showed us a plasma space amoeba in the sixties

[zorgon]

So no worries... the CRITTER theory is gaining ground, no matter how many psuedoskeptics try to derail us

But most important, it is coming to main stream science now....

New Scientist
Plasma blobs hint at new form of life

Published September 2003   I never saw THIS one  wow.... 

Physicists have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.

Imagine that  plasma orbs... explaining how life began

Most biologists think living cells arose out of a complex and lengthy evolution of chemicals that took millions of years, beginning with simple molecules through amino acids, primitive proteins and finally forming an organised structure. But if Mircea Sanduloviciu and his colleagues at Cuza University in Romania are right, the theory may have to be completely revised. They say cell-like self-organisation can occur in a few microseconds.

"a few microseconds"?? uh oh... that will stir up the religious crowd...

A distinct boundary layer that confines and separates an object from its environment is one of the four main criteria generally used to define living cells. Sanduloviciu decided to find out if his cells met the other criteria: the ability to replicate, to communicate information, and to metabolise and grow.

He found that the spheres could replicate by splitting into two. Under the right conditions they also got bigger, taking up neutral argon atoms and splitting them into ions and electrons to replenish their boundary layers.

Finally, they could communicate information by emitting electromagnetic energy, making the atoms within other spheres vibrate at a particular frequency. The spheres are not the only self-organising systems to meet all of these requirements. But they are the first gaseous "cells".

Sanduloviciu even thinks they could have been the first cells on Earth, arising within electric storms. "The emergence of such spheres seems likely to be a prerequisite for biochemical evolution," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4174-plasma-blobs-hint-at-new-form-of-life.html

So the plasma orbs can replicate by splitting like a cell, they can grow and they can communicate. And since our system is also electric in nature, seems to me we may be related