the only thing about the tether objects is that some arc upwards and away from the earth and at this height is impossible because past 160km, there is not enough air pressure to pass shockwaves, at the height of the shuttle (~300km) propulsion is needed even if it's caused by large concentrations of radiation in the thermosphere. but if the radiation was so concentrated, the ice crystals should melt at that temperature and height. ~1500C at its worst. at this temp, water should ionise.
Why the need for theories about 'shockwaves' and 'radiation'?
I don't get your question.
Regarding temperature, am i right in assuming that you think the temperature in LEO is 1500 degrees? If so, you need to research the whole concept of temperature - it's really just a human measure of how 'energetic' something is. The 'temperature' of space itself is just above absolute zero.
So, if you're talking about how hot something gets when exposed to the sun's rays, you have to look at it in terms of thermodynamics. You can't just say, everything exposed to the sun will be at 1500 degrees, because it simply doesn't work like that. The sun's rays don't have 'a temperature', they are a source of energy, and some of that energy can be absorbed by objects at a certain power per area. If an object gains more heat energy than it loses, its temperature rises.
If an object loses more heat energy than it gains, it cools. I'll leave it up to you to do the math, but consider the fact that the shuttle is constanty losing heat energy to surrounding space (just above absolute zero), whereas earth only reaches a few tens of degrees even though it is insulated by an atmosphere which only attenuates the sun's power by about a 3rd. A shuttle with no insulating atmosphere surrounding it, exposed to space at just above abs zero is gonna be cold
Why don't you read the reports of ice forming on the shuttle that survived for days and was even present upon landing?
Anyway, onto the other nonense........
Space is not a complete vacuum at shuttle altitudes. There are plently of online resources available which will verify this. Any particle which comes from the Shuttle, will inevitably change in velocity relative to the shuttle, because it is exposed to the same atmospheric velocity but has a tiny mass (a = F/m).
These particles can initially move in any direction, depending on their source, but they will always ultimately head towards earth, because there is a solid mathematical relationship between orbital velocity and altitude (study orbital mechanics). The shuttle can quite reasonably eject a particle away from earth initially (many sources), but drag will always reduce its orbital velocity faster than the shuttle, so it will vere towards earth. This is shown in the STS-75 videos.
There is not one example of particles in the STS-75 videos turning away from earth. It is always a single turn if the object is initially heading away from earth, and from then on it is doomed to abide by gravity.
There is no evidence of control of any kind, and every single aspect of the optical appearance suggests tiny nearfield out of focus particles......consistently..........conclusively.
There is no mystery, and there never was, among knowledgeable men.
Very good example. When I first saw tether video I was like wow. But later, wait why all of them are turned the perfect circle side to the camera, like they were saying "hey cameraman, look our spaceships are circles".... people may say still that they are orbs... heh. I found on M. Stubbs another video, that makes exactly the same camera artifact like on the tether vid. EXACTLY the same. @MoronAntidote, PM me if you want to check it. Sorry guys, STS-75 tether incident is not ET's spaceships.
The math involved in this is not exactly simple, but drag represents a force which opposes the motion of any object (0.5 x frontal area x drag coefficient x atmospheric density x velocity squared), and the acceleration (negative in this case) depends on the drag force and mass: a=F/m. This means that small low mass particles are 'decelerated' far greater than the large mass Shuttle, and since the camera is mounted on the Shuttle, small low mass particles move relative to it.
NASA has simulated this, and documents are available online. I have also simulated it myself, and i concur with their findings.
The thing to remember is, you're looking at a 2D representation of 3D, and therefore cannot claim that 40 or 90 degree turns actually happening. Likewise, when an object appears to 'stop', it can't possibly be doing so. If it did, at >17000mph it would vanish from view in an instant. All you are seeing is small relative differences in velocity.
If someone throws a ball into the air, your perception of its trajectory depends upon where you stand relative to the thrower, and how high he throws it. You wouldn't ever claim the ball was making 40 or 90 degree turns, because you know the ball is following a curved trajectory dependant on gravity, drag and view angle. Well, it's similar in low earth orbit: gravity is only slightly less, drag is much less but still present, and view angle is just the same as on Earth.
@MoronAntidote but, first they say its space junk debris, then they say its lens artifacts. well 1 thing they havent explained is, how does a piece of space junk go clearly behind the tether, and we know how far away the tether is... and if it were lens artifacts then the object would go over the tether, NOT dissapear behind it. there is no refuting that. im quite sure that the video could be a hoax, but if it IS indeed real footage, then its not artifacts, nor space junk
great theory! But can you please try to explain also how come that the STS-75 "objects" make 40 to even 90 degree turns in complete vaccuum without being propelled by any known source?
There must be an easy explanation, centainly for someone like you who seems to to very much about the used technology for that time
Arnold i've tried to reply to you, but YouTube still makes it impossible to write a reply in several posts without them getting mixed up. I tried to sort it out but the first post got lost. You should still have in your email. I hope you can put them in order and make sense of them. If not, no worries. The science/math behind this stuff is concrete as far i and NASA are concerned.
One thing i would like you to question when you watch the video, is why do all the objects always turn and head towards earth? In case you're wondering, the tether was a gravity stabilised device, and therefore hung like a plumb line along a line intersecting Earth's center of gravity. We know from the video commentary that the lower end pointed towards earth, and that the satellite was at the top. As expected, all the objects do no more than react to gravity and drag. No ET!
Now we know the Tether Incident shapes are sharp points of light (albeit moving) merely distorted by the extreme close-up. And I was worried they were giant interplanetary amoebae....
very good video. The thing that always makes me laugh about conspiracy theorists as is they try to argue with people much much more qualified. Your average conspiracy dude takes the recycled knowledge from some other dude This is why, ironically I find conspiracy dudes to be more moronic than the mainstream they rebel against. When actually the truth they are finding is 100x more watered down and fucked with then the truth they rebel agains. Its like ignorance for dummys haha
Thank you for the illuminating video. I never trusted Sereda. He definitely has a charlatan streak in his demeanor. I was skeptical of the nasa ufo video because the objects always seemed to have the same orientation to the camera. I tried contacting Sereda about this but he never responded. I have not heard him refer to "nasa ufos" in a while.
Any thoughts on what the "z particles" are? I have seen them on slowed down recordings I've made.
Okay the Tether incident intrigued me but I couldn't imagine that the 'UFOs' would behave like random dust particles or whatever so I am happy for this video to fairly and concisely debunk the idea of aliens examining the tether. Okay, so am in full agreement with the OP, thanks. Now could anyone tell a photographic laymen like me what causes these objects in simple terms? I just don't understand it at all, sorry!
You give a nice theoretical alternative explanation for what you believe to be happening on the NASA video. What's your explanation for the rest of the event? How was the gyroscope on the satellite powered off? Why caused the configuration of the satellite signals to change? How did the fuel tank become empty? How did the steering thruster valves become open? All of these changes require them to be turned off via remote control and the astronauts didn't do it. We know this because they said so.
That's an interesting question, and i think if you trawl through the available NASA documents, you'll find your answer. Right now, i'm not inclined to do that for you, but as someone who works in the field of electronics (Laser Systems), i'm all too aware of the consequences of EMI on electronic systems, especially comms.
The tether was burned through by a sustained electric arc, and anyone with any experience in managing suppression/immunity of RF with regard to electric arcs (e.g. welding, gas discharge in lasers) will relate stories of comms issues, including system crashes and erratic behaviour. There is no need to invoke notions of mysterious intervention on the part of aliens when we see it all the time on earth. I've experienced it myself, and i'm sure i recall reading a similar explanation from NASA.
Jeezus, it may be off-topic but, this video may have come through like 5 (or 6??) recorder (including the one the camera was hooked up to), i mean, copied. Typical artifact of analog magnetic recording is a horizontal snip-line that usually appears at the bottom (head drum switches from one head to another), but moves across the picture when the recorder is briefly tilted from sync. I see there like 5 of them. O.o
Sorry but i'm not sure whether you're talking about this video of the STS-75 footage. Either way, the nature of degradation through copying can usually be broken down into distortion/noise and artifacts such as the 'snip-line' you mentioned. There's enough consistency here between such artifacts to be able to verify that the appearance of the object is at worst slightly noisy/distorted but basically as depicted. That's my view anyway.
Sorry, i just mentioned an observation. Actually i have to correct myself on the numbers of snip-lines. perhaps only 3 or 4 at most. Other than that, there is no point here on the camera artifact itself.
Great video. I'm glad someone with intelligence is flying the flag for a change.
Usually it's nut jobs stating every out of focus light in the sky is some kind of alien mothership. And they wonder why nobody takes the subject seriously.
I rarely bother trying to debate the idiots these days. You might as well bang your head against a wall - it's pointless. The vast majority who argue are ignorant/uneducated, and if they are educated they're still ignorant, usually because they're outside their field but too damn arrogant to admit they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
finally another intelligent person, lol, thanks for the "scoop" I tried to make this point o may others but, well, they "religious" nuts wanna believe, cant convince them elsewise
TBH i don't bother much these days - it's largely a waste of time. The vast majority of people on YouTube are complete fucking idiots sadly, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
The trouble is, people with poor judgement are incapable of accurately judging themselves or others. You cannot make them see sense no matter what - it's futile.
What we're actually talking about here is a 'circle of confusion'. The circle of confusion, as imaged on the photocathode is many many times the diameter of the object from which it is formed. A spec of matter close to a camera focused at great distance or infinity will not block light from more distant objects just because they lie within the circle of confusion, because the circle of conclusion is false.
It does not represent the true scale of the object, but is exagerrated because its image is focused behind the photocathode. The 'real' small spec will be essentially transparent to the objects behind. You can try this with a camera for yourself.
thank you, you've just shown that this is an de-focused image of a point light source, what you see is the immediate lens area and inside the lens barrel. the three notches are light measurement devices inside the lens barrel that sample the light for the cameras automatic systems. and the bar, you can see a cable or something across the lens when it is still pointed at the road, something very close to the lens.. thanks again..
the keyword seems to be "unknown" light source. I am still trying to understand how the camera focused on the tether would afford light sources moving.
hmm...well if the camera is focused on the tether how is the disc moving? And...how when the camera is pulled away are all the "debris" moving around the tether?
I've seen enough of your abusive, ignorant and childish conspiracy theorist crap. Why should i let you poison the comments section of this video too? People like you totally justify censorship.
This makes a lot of sense, too bad, I was hoping that it really was some new type of being , a kind of plasmatic life from we did not know about and just discovered by chance.
So are you telling me that you actually believe the old saying "cameras never lie"? Go ask a photographer, or better still get yourself a camera and see for yourself just how easy it is to conjure UFOs from mundane objects.
That clears that up. Good for you. I knew id find a rational explanation with a bit of digging.
Such an obvious one too. the whole oscillation/varying displacement thing I think is what was subconciously making me not want to believe those objects were that huge. It just didn't look right to me.
QUESTION: We know that aiming a camera at a street lamp can produce this "notched" effect in the lens. Here the camera aims at a star. Both are real objects that appear to be bright lights.
So.... what were the objects that are seen moving about in the Teather vid? Forget the notch shape caused by the lens. That's not the point. What are the objects moving about? Seriously, are they ice crystals moving on their own? What is it?
The camera in this video is not aimed at a star or a street lamp, but the nature of the object is not important.
If you watch the objects in the STS-75 video, those which change direction all eventually head in the direction of Earth's center of mass (the tether points down towards it). Space is not a vacuum at the shuttle's altitude and the ionospheric drag at ~17500mph is sufficient to decelerate tiny low mass particles, causing loss of altitude. IMO they're ice particles behaving naturally
The notches are nothing more than camera artifacts produced by the camera's insides. Normal cameras have irises that produce the so called "diamond" shape some so called "UFOs" have when placed out of focus.
Very good example. it shows very well how the star it is no more a star in the image, but a disc (airy disc), a defocused image, who imitates somehow the shape of the pupil entrance of the lens or other physical characteristics (construction aspects), and even that cable in front is replicated on the disc shape. The notches of the discs are very similar to the NASA video.
The 'cable' you refer to is interesting, as it shows how nearfield obstructions (for example internal lens structures) will be superimposed on a defocused light source regardless of its position within the field of view. Sometimes the 'cable' moves out of the way completely, but whenever it enters the FOV (seen as a broad, faint, dark band), it produces a shadow on the disc.
Nice proof that notches will appear simultaneously on any number of defocused sources!
Very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think of David Sereda's claim that if one of the NASA cameras is focused on a distant object, all near-field objects must come into focus as well? Is he mistaken/lying? Is he assuming that the camera that filmed the tether incident was ever brought into proper focus in the first place?
I'm wondering what make and model of camera was this.
Because I was once very much into backyard astronomy, I am aware of how unfocussed bright objects can appear in reflecting telescopes. The secondary mirror is within the path of the primary mirror and would show up as a dark circle in unfocussed images.
Perhaps this camera had a front optical glass with a secondary mirror attached on the inside which bounced light straight back through a hole in the primary (to condense focal length).
Thanks for the first level-headed analysis of such things that I've ever seen. If people would simply apply Occam's Razor once in awhile before jumping off into wild speculation we'd know a lot more about these phenomena.
The comedy of this is that I am a skeptic but this a farce. Anyone who has looked at this in any serious manner don't buy this as an explanation, debris yes, camera artifacts no.
The reason is you had to move the camera to create the movement of one object. In the NASA vid, there are many items moving independently of each other. That can be debris but not lens issues.
I have a question. Does anyone know if the zooming in on some of the larger objects was by NASA or the presenter ?
What a joke. I started out in this as a total skeptic but unlike some I can see hoaxers on both sides.
You managed to re-create 1 item that isn't even on par with the true look of what was captured on the Nasa film. Lets see you make a ton of them all criss crossing around at various speeds never running into each other and by the way NASA says it's all debris not camera issues.
I would further add, that the comments about the discs passing behind the tether are false.
CCD chips saturate with a certain amount of light, the tether is bright, and anything passing in front with the refelcted light will just saturate the chip more, and not record the extra info, thus appearing like the disc is passing behind...
I have a 16" newtonian and the so called notches are classic of a finder tube shadow in a defocused situation. rest are DUSTMOTES
I wonder why a well known scientist like sereda missed this explination.Whats your opinion on the other sts videos where objects change direction at high speed.
They proved this object is light reflecting off the lens or shotter in side the camera its not the accual shape of a craft, I think the show was UFO hunters
Now add about 40 others, moving in different directions at different speeds, pulsing, changing direction and when zooming out still appear to be 100 nautical miles away.
No need. It doesn't matter how many objects there are, the same optical phenomena will apply. There is no mystery about the number of objects in the STS-75 footage. Read up on water dumps and payload bay debris.
That may explain the shapes of the image that we see, but how does that explain the movements made by those 'mundane' objects, knowing very well how objects move in space? That cannot be explained by your theory of what you are seeing.
Why would you think that a demonstration of a camera artifact should explain the physical movement?
Surely you realise that the study of STS-75 footage involves principles across a broad range of disciplines? It is not necessary for a demonstration of an optical principle to explain all aspects of the footage in order to be valid.
The notches move around the UFO's on the NASA video, These ones are always vertical. Also In the NASA video notches point in different direction on different objects it the same frame. If this were a camera effect shouldn't they all point in the same direction.
Also why do you think the teather itself is visable?
"The notches are merely shadows of the lens guide shafts, and as the object moves vertically within the field of view, various combination's of upper and lower shafts impinge upon the image" How many lens guide shafts do these cameras have? You are talking about 30-50 different anomalies in the sts-75 video all present at the same time at different angles and depths. SURELY lens guide shaft shadows are not touching every single one of these anomalies at the same time? Try again.
With the aperture wide open, the image produced by ANY OBJECT close enough to be this out of focus will be impinged by obstructions within the lens barrel. The angle of an object w.r.t. the optical axis will affect which obstructions come into play, which is why the notches fade top/bottom as the object and camera move relative to one another. The notches are visible wherever the object is within the FOV, and any number of additional objects will follow the same position dependant notch pattern.
hey just check out the background communication of ground control on the tether! i put it up they even admit in a few sentences that theres ufos being filmed! please this is great proof! you can hear what they said!
You can think what you like mate. Your problem is that you're incapable of distinguishing a principle from irrelevant cosmetic details, and don't realise that it doesn't matter how many objects there are, they will all be subject to the same principle. This video and the principle it illustrates has nothing to do with your need to understand why so many objects were present, though this is no less explainable. You need to learn to isolate different aspects before you can understand such matters.
Here is my question. If the lines on the anomaly presented in this video featured are coming from shadows of the lens guide shafts, then how come in the sts-75 video footage we see the lines presented more than once, in fact many times, all at the same time, all in different directions at the very same time? Thank you for your time.
im with you.. but do the camera artifacts explain the motion and pulsing of the disc shapes, and also the swimming objects too. your artifact is static and still, there were an awful lot of objects swimming around, could they be explained as camera artifacts also, just curious not judgmental thanks for your post..
thanks for your little experiment, i watched the D Serada video yesterday and was intrigued, i suspected lens flares or something.
Now i'm convinced and also mr Serada is a nutjob! :)
I believe we are not alone but i have yet to see real factual evidence.
Also if you want a good laugh there's a guy on youtube who claims the jpeg artifacts (clearly!) on recent mars photos are artificial structures, he's serious about it too! :)
Why are there som many "airy discs" in the sts 75 video? There were so many of them , overlapping, pulsating light, different sizes... why don't you give an example of this same thing if it is merely a "camera artifact"? Why do you only show one "airy disc" that is stationary, instead of dozens of different sizes, with some of them pulsating light? Is this type of camera artifact only possible in outer space?
Interesting video thanks - i was looking on the world wide telescope are there are hundreds of these objects on there, kind of explains it a bit more. Take a look on the WWT and see them for yourself
And how do you explain the overwhelming QUANTITY of these pulsating, donut-shaped, mobile objects with "bites" in the corner seen in the STS-75 footage? This is just one object that can easily be rationalised by saying it's simply a camera defect. This is not similar to the SWARM of swift moving objects in the NASA video of the "tether incident". And no one from NASA has yet to explain what they were, so why do you think you can?
ok is all about zooming at a source of light probably like in the case of sts75 video but do you want compare a camera like this with a digital ccd camera like the camera mounted on shuttle? This error of video capture is not moving like the objects in the sts75 video, there are a lot of difference.
Great video. Only one thing. This shape similar to the sts-75 footage, is produced by a single static point of light in the sky(no dust,no debris).
OK, in the sts-75 footage, we can see the same shape, caused probably by other lights (no dust), moving constantly. Mystery is still unsolved, for me. Thank you again for this great video
Nice try but... this looks NOTHING like those pulsating disks in the STS-75 video. The camera was at a fixed position while the disks are moving at different directions both front and back of tether.
I believe that any and all anomalous ufo type events can be explained rationally, however I would urge smart people like MoronAntidote to read some of the bigger books by Timothy Good to get an idea of the sheer amount of great sightings (particularly with radar evidence) that have been made by intelligent people the world over. Also, please read something by Jacques Vallee (Dimensions). Once read please give us your opinion on what the phenomenon is. Thanks for this vid.
I admit I greatly leaned to the opinion that they were "ufo's" of some type all these years. Now I can finally say that the single greatest piece of video "evidence" for ufo's no longer exists, that's a simple fact. Silly that it took this easy to swallow reproduction to hammer this home and that an explaination would not suffice. Could people please comment on why they seemed to be moving in sts footage but very stationary here? CONTINUED....
First, excuse my name, this account was set up merely to hurl abuse at the reams of a-holes and r-tards posting useless vids on youtube, that explained...
Thanks very much for this vid! First bit of real palpable analysis (with great detailed description, half of which went over my head but oh well) that I've seen on the subject. I watched this years ago on tv and have been fascinated ever since, you don't know the amount of times I've watched this footage. CONTINUED...
Looking forward to your thoughts about why the tether is visible. I'm especially puzzled about why it's visible when the full length is visible.
I don't know its inclination away -- it could be we can only effectively see 1 or 2 km length. Even then, though, in some segments we must be viewing 4 km + across, and the tether is a tiny tiny fraction of this.
Not sure wat the light is, but the shape is just internal reflection within the lens. Before zoom in an object can be seen obscuring the lens (camera strap?) this same object is repeated in the 'ufo'. MA is right, this effect will be repeated next time you zoom into a bright point of light, and set it out of focus. I do like the effect tho.
Camera lens artifacts are one thing. Recording what the eye also sees is quite another. On the footage of sts-80, someone one the ground asks one of the astronauts to explain what they were seeing, to which he responded, "there is a lot of debris that follows us." I.e., we were seeing space junk, not lens artifacts.
goodsnservices, the pass-behind-effect is an optical illusion. In nutshell: Effective diameter of the tether is about 3/4". Due to
overexposure by sun, it appears hundreds of feet wide. A small, defocused nearby floating ice particle can't defeat this 'light power'. Hence it happens nothing, if the particle crosses the tether - what exactly gives the
illusion the particle passed behind the tether. Note the notched ring shape comes from a mirrored telephoto-lens. That's all!
You don't have to try to convince me sacha, its obvious as far as i'm concerned. I'm curious how you arrive at 3/4" effective diameter though. Could you explain this?
Sacha, i don't understand why you think i'm immune to the facts. I'm not disputing anything 'official' in relation to STS-75. I have read every damn thing i can find on the subject (physics included) and i personally have no doubts concerning the official explanation. This video is intended as an example of how cameras can produce the notches seen during the STS-75 footage, not an argument for alien spacecraft. Maybe you should read some of my comments.
goodnservices, i don't think it is possible to claim with any certainty that the astronauts were describing what they saw using only their eyes. They could just have easily been giving their opinion on what they saw via the CCTV system. However, if this was the case then i believe their experience was sufficient to identify the source of camera artifacts. Unlike people watching the video, they were able to observe these objects from the time of their appearance, possibly tied to an event.
You make a very valid point.The problem is die hard believers want it to be true and will say anything to make it that way.Where as die hard skeptics will do the exact opposite.You have taken an educated and scientific approach, this is what is needed. Everyone should be aware of the tricks light plays on us .Add an optical device(which is by no means perfect)refraction of light or unfocussed images and who knows what is real. I do believe in "ufos". All I want is facts, no hear say.
You ask "I'm curious though - why is it always up to the skeptics to do the leg work?".
Well I am one of those pesky amateur astronomers who saw UFOs frequently (in my case 3 times) in my late-teen years during long nightly Luna observations -at least before I grew into an old fart scared of the cold. Sadly nothing seen as an adult as a result... fwiw I think the tether objects are living, curious-minded entities but I assure you I am quite sane :-)
if a filmed UFO looked like an out-of-focus doughnut, then it would be a UFO or out-of-focus doughnut?
I am hesitant to always believe things that visually walk like a duck and quack like a duck are always...ducks. Look how the Bentwaters case 'lighthouse explanation' was recently demolished. Many experts hung their reps on that one.
A still photo is one thing, but I have no film to view as yet re my challenge. Notches out, but jury still out for me. Thanks for replies.
You're welcome. The problem is, the notched donuts only appear when the camera zooms in. If you watch the zoom adjustment scenes, you can clearly see the form (admittedly poorly defined) of the objects responsible, and they look like random particles tumbling in space. I don't see anything suggestive of craft there. The movement may be odd, but if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, yet moves in ways which are unknown to 'some' duck watchers, it isn't always a spacecraft ;)
Whether a still or video, the same principle applies. It's not really a challenge, since anyone can prove the principle using a camera (care to try?), but if anything crops up i'll let you know. I'm curious though - why is it always up to the skeptics to do the leg work? Afterall, i'm not the one arguing against the official explanation.
Also, you made no attempt to refute the important issue of motion parallax.
'Also, you made no attempt to refute the important issue of motion parallax.'
MA, I spent in the order of three to four hours measuring objects and charting their movements relative to the tether. I recorded 'internal' coordinates in sections. I can sen all of this. I hope you can give some detail so that I can look for the parallex effects. The only thing that strikes me is the lack of such effects, but then maybe I'm not looking at the right objects, there are a lot of them! :-)
I'm working on it. I must admit it's not as pronounced as i first thought, but i have certainly found something. I think part of the problem is the barrel distortion which occurs with near objects at long zoom. This has the effect of decreasing magnification as a function of distance from the optical axis, producing a non-linear compression of oscillation magnitude (i'm focusing on an event which occurs in the upper portion of the FOV, as it is the most pronounced). Later :)
Thank for posting this fascinating footage. It does seem to offer a clue to the 'notch' aspect of the Tether footage. I always felt that the Tether footage is staggeringly important (direction changes, swarming, going behind distant tether) but the notches of these illuminated objects were an artifact, all pointing to the same o'clock position which nailed it for me. Explaning away the notches doesn't lessen the evidence these are craft, in many ways, it now helps.
Thanks, though i'm puzzled how this can possibly help the theory that they are spacecraft. If you accept this explanation for the notches, then you must also accept that they are very small objects in front of the camera. You cannot accept one without the other. So, are they really tiny little spacecraft in front of the camera which just so happen to resemble random particles of ice/debris tumbling in space? Curious ;)
hi, well I'm not convinced that the objects going behind the tether is an artifact. Someone needs to show me an example of that (like you did for the notches). Show me a vid of some close, small objects going behind a distant object. Any takers?
Well firstly, this notched donut appearance occurs because the object is way out of focus, due to the camera being focused far into the distance. In the case of STS-75, this implies that the objects are in front of the tether (the object of focus). Secondly, measurement of the motion parallax visible during the many camera oscillation events, reveals that they are in the foreground. As i said, you can't accept the notch explanation without also accepting that they are not behind the tether.
Btw, there are plenty of photographs around which prove that a farfield object can appear in front of a nearfield object. A quick search found a nice picture of the ISS appearing in front of the crosshairs of the camera, similar in principle to many of the Apollo stills:
3 DoubleUs dot projectprove dot com slash Arts slash 075 slash 075 dot php
You could also prove it to yourself using a camera.
I am grateful for the illustration. I fully agree with you regarding principles, they are by nature general, and the way they apply depends upon specifics of a context. I'm also particularly interested in the gain, which is just going to produce a lot of noise, no doubt about that. Would you be willing to take a ball-park stab at how much small debris beyond a km or so away might be visible. I really cannot see how this so-called debris can be residual from incident given directions of motion.
Excellent vid. I've been looking for credible evidence for or against these "objects" as extraterrestrial in origin, and most of what I found was absurd "for" arguments that had no real grounding in science (superluminal electromagnetic fields and such).
I wish more people would exercise a little skepticism first and actually seek truth rather than quickly accepting pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories just because they want something to be real.
It is great video MA. You say the displacement of the so called UFOs is "considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation". Could you point to a specific instance, with reference to the time on a copy of footage and x-y coordinates of the object expressed in units of 0.01 of the width and height of observable area? Most interested to see a case in point.
"Something which is unproven is not necessarily impossible, but it remains a hypothesis awaiting evaluation, and will/should not be accepted as possible beforehand."
You kinda contradicted yourself there... "It's not necessarily impossible, but it's not possible" But I think I understand what you're trying to say. And unfortunately, I think I'm starting to agree that these are just rocks and chunks of ice. And they may have strange movement patterns, but it doesn't appear to be intelligent.
great video mate is it your own if you showed it to nasa they would tell you its debri ha its so simular to the tether video but except is up in the sky its deffo a ufo and not debri that nasa covers it up with
that was the same i told to this motherfucker david sereda.. he didnt even read thru it or notice it.. hes a fucking loser and no real researcher.. fuck him!
Did you post on Sereda's blog? If so, it's possible i read it myself. The man actually wants NASA to send him into space so he can play silly buggers with ice and debris. It'll never happen of course, but it's amusing to imagine a fight breaking out on the flight deck, with Sereda becoming the first man to experience EVA minus a space suit. Several people even posted "Please send David Sereda into space, and leave him there". Evil, but understandable i'd say ;)
1) The object is not static and does in fact move diagonally later in the video. Whether or not the object is static is irrelevant - the same camera artifacts apply. Tether objects are all moving at around 17500mph - so what?
2) The notches are practically identical and i can't imagine why you think otherwise. An observable principle cannot be refuted outright when slight differences are expected under different conditions, using a similar lens construction on a different camera.
3) Why would it be pulsing? It is not tumbling the way the objects do in the tether video. With the NASA camera, objects which are out of focus produce a flat donut regardless of their true shape, and because they are irregular in shape and tumbling (see the zoomed out scenes), obviously this produces a flat donut with a cyclic light pattern. Out of focus + irregular in shape + tumbling = flat donut with cyclic light pattern. This is kid's stuff!
4) The camera in the tether footage is an image intensified (gain in the low thousands) SIT Vidicon tube type, focused on the tether almost 100 miles away, during orbital sunrise, with tiny pieces of ice/debris drifting about close by. This is a CCTV camera badly focused on a much larger and more intense light source perhaps a mile away. The lenses may be similar, but that's about it, so comparing the edge definition is like comparing apples with oranges. Understand - this is about a priniciple!
Why is it when people want to believe there is something paranormal about STS-75, they suspend common sense? I've noticed a common trait in such people, whereby they become fixated on the smallest differences and claim that they are enough to discredit a theory, when they are really expected variations in the manifestation of a basic principle under varying conditions.
@MoronAntidote Firstly i think you are awesome! for replying to so many comments over years! now :-) i have spent the last hour reading some comments here and your rebuttle.! good job!
Just a thought that crossed my mind with regard to the Tether objects moving at 17500 mph .. wouldn't even the shuttle be moving at that speed also? much like driving next to someone both driving 50mph wouldn't you seem to be static?
its a security light reflecting back its on the corner of the building you can see the horisontal line of the building the small hills in the back ground make the buildings size look out of context
Thanks for the video and explanations, i have realised these particular objects are not craft. Its pretty obvious they're not going behind the tether, the out of focus objects are 'overwritten' by the stronger light of the tether. there is a short video with one of these images and it seems as if its traveling below the clouds, i guess this is similar to the long distance effect seen here. you say somewhere that you believe ET exists, what are your views on sts 85 and belgium 1990-1991.
It is my right to prevent offensive, stupid, or just plain crazy people from posting their drivel in response to this video. I don't censor opposing points of view if they are relevant and from reasonable people. I see nothing wrong in that, and i'd be grateful if you'd respect it. Thankyou.
BTW you are not actually discussing this video. It is not about aliens or spacecraft. It is about cameras and optical artifacts. Please remember that before you thrust your beliefs upon me.
wow, you once again proved like many others before that objects, which reflect or produce light, can become airy discs, which describes almost everything, even a ufo (or spacecraft).
so whats the point? have you really thought out your arguments? i doesn't seems so...
how does the information contained by your "experiment" proves that these are NOT space crafts?
tell me, whats the difference between debris that is reflecting light and a spacecraft that is reflecting light?
Yes i have thought out my arguments, though it is clear you have missed their implications. You cannot acknowledge that any light source (reflected or otherwise) can become an out of focus airy disc without considering why, and what it tells you under the circumstances. Firstly, in the case of STS-75, it tells you that the objects are not behind the tether, and therefore not 3 miles wide.
the only thing about the tether objects is that some arc upwards and away from the earth and at this height is impossible because past 160km, there is not enough air pressure to pass shockwaves, at the height of the shuttle (~300km) propulsion is needed even if it's caused by large concentrations of radiation in the thermosphere. but if the radiation was so concentrated, the ice crystals should melt at that temperature and height. ~1500C at its worst. at this temp, water should ionise.
cbcomputersWA 1 year ago
@cbcomputersWA
Why the need for theories about 'shockwaves' and 'radiation'?
I don't get your question.
Regarding temperature, am i right in assuming that you think the temperature in LEO is 1500 degrees? If so, you need to research the whole concept of temperature - it's really just a human measure of how 'energetic' something is. The 'temperature' of space itself is just above absolute zero.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote
So, if you're talking about how hot something gets when exposed to the sun's rays, you have to look at it in terms of thermodynamics. You can't just say, everything exposed to the sun will be at 1500 degrees, because it simply doesn't work like that. The sun's rays don't have 'a temperature', they are a source of energy, and some of that energy can be absorbed by objects at a certain power per area. If an object gains more heat energy than it loses, its temperature rises.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote
If an object loses more heat energy than it gains, it cools. I'll leave it up to you to do the math, but consider the fact that the shuttle is constanty losing heat energy to surrounding space (just above absolute zero), whereas earth only reaches a few tens of degrees even though it is insulated by an atmosphere which only attenuates the sun's power by about a 3rd. A shuttle with no insulating atmosphere surrounding it, exposed to space at just above abs zero is gonna be cold
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote
Why don't you read the reports of ice forming on the shuttle that survived for days and was even present upon landing?
Anyway, onto the other nonense........
Space is not a complete vacuum at shuttle altitudes. There are plently of online resources available which will verify this. Any particle which comes from the Shuttle, will inevitably change in velocity relative to the shuttle, because it is exposed to the same atmospheric velocity but has a tiny mass (a = F/m).
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote
These particles can initially move in any direction, depending on their source, but they will always ultimately head towards earth, because there is a solid mathematical relationship between orbital velocity and altitude (study orbital mechanics). The shuttle can quite reasonably eject a particle away from earth initially (many sources), but drag will always reduce its orbital velocity faster than the shuttle, so it will vere towards earth. This is shown in the STS-75 videos.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote
There is not one example of particles in the STS-75 videos turning away from earth. It is always a single turn if the object is initially heading away from earth, and from then on it is doomed to abide by gravity.
There is no evidence of control of any kind, and every single aspect of the optical appearance suggests tiny nearfield out of focus particles......consistently..........conclusively.
There is no mystery, and there never was, among knowledgeable men.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
Very good example. When I first saw tether video I was like wow. But later, wait why all of them are turned the perfect circle side to the camera, like they were saying "hey cameraman, look our spaceships are circles".... people may say still that they are orbs... heh. I found on M. Stubbs another video, that makes exactly the same camera artifact like on the tether vid. EXACTLY the same. @MoronAntidote, PM me if you want to check it. Sorry guys, STS-75 tether incident is not ET's spaceships.
sebastiansz 1 year ago
Thanks somebody finally debunked this idiocracy in a well worded manner.
Tripo1iSamson 1 year ago
@ArnoldVeeman
The math involved in this is not exactly simple, but drag represents a force which opposes the motion of any object (0.5 x frontal area x drag coefficient x atmospheric density x velocity squared), and the acceleration (negative in this case) depends on the drag force and mass: a=F/m. This means that small low mass particles are 'decelerated' far greater than the large mass Shuttle, and since the camera is mounted on the Shuttle, small low mass particles move relative to it.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@ArnoldVeeman
NASA has simulated this, and documents are available online. I have also simulated it myself, and i concur with their findings.
The thing to remember is, you're looking at a 2D representation of 3D, and therefore cannot claim that 40 or 90 degree turns actually happening. Likewise, when an object appears to 'stop', it can't possibly be doing so. If it did, at >17000mph it would vanish from view in an instant. All you are seeing is small relative differences in velocity.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@ArnoldVeeman
If someone throws a ball into the air, your perception of its trajectory depends upon where you stand relative to the thrower, and how high he throws it. You wouldn't ever claim the ball was making 40 or 90 degree turns, because you know the ball is following a curved trajectory dependant on gravity, drag and view angle. Well, it's similar in low earth orbit: gravity is only slightly less, drag is much less but still present, and view angle is just the same as on Earth.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@MoronAntidote but, first they say its space junk debris, then they say its lens artifacts. well 1 thing they havent explained is, how does a piece of space junk go clearly behind the tether, and we know how far away the tether is... and if it were lens artifacts then the object would go over the tether, NOT dissapear behind it. there is no refuting that. im quite sure that the video could be a hoax, but if it IS indeed real footage, then its not artifacts, nor space junk
MrSweatyZombie 1 year ago
great theory! But can you please try to explain also how come that the STS-75 "objects" make 40 to even 90 degree turns in complete vaccuum without being propelled by any known source?
There must be an easy explanation, centainly for someone like you who seems to to very much about the used technology for that time
ArnoldVeeman 1 year ago
@ArnoldVeeman
Arnold i've tried to reply to you, but YouTube still makes it impossible to write a reply in several posts without them getting mixed up. I tried to sort it out but the first post got lost. You should still have in your email. I hope you can put them in order and make sense of them. If not, no worries. The science/math behind this stuff is concrete as far i and NASA are concerned.
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
@ArnoldVeeman
One thing i would like you to question when you watch the video, is why do all the objects always turn and head towards earth? In case you're wondering, the tether was a gravity stabilised device, and therefore hung like a plumb line along a line intersecting Earth's center of gravity. We know from the video commentary that the lower end pointed towards earth, and that the satellite was at the top. As expected, all the objects do no more than react to gravity and drag. No ET!
MoronAntidote 1 year ago
Now we know the Tether Incident shapes are sharp points of light (albeit moving) merely distorted by the extreme close-up. And I was worried they were giant interplanetary amoebae....
nickdwyer 1 year ago
very good video. The thing that always makes me laugh about conspiracy theorists as is they try to argue with people much much more qualified. Your average conspiracy dude takes the recycled knowledge from some other dude This is why, ironically I find conspiracy dudes to be more moronic than the mainstream they rebel against. When actually the truth they are finding is 100x more watered down and fucked with then the truth they rebel agains. Its like ignorance for dummys haha
bakerstray 1 year ago
Thank you for the illuminating video. I never trusted Sereda. He definitely has a charlatan streak in his demeanor. I was skeptical of the nasa ufo video because the objects always seemed to have the same orientation to the camera. I tried contacting Sereda about this but he never responded. I have not heard him refer to "nasa ufos" in a while.
Any thoughts on what the "z particles" are? I have seen them on slowed down recordings I've made.
IAmAwakeAndAware 1 year ago
I think very slowly people are becoming aware of camera artifacts, but I think too slowly!
GoddessOfHellsFire 1 year ago
Okay the Tether incident intrigued me but I couldn't imagine that the 'UFOs' would behave like random dust particles or whatever so I am happy for this video to fairly and concisely debunk the idea of aliens examining the tether. Okay, so am in full agreement with the OP, thanks. Now could anyone tell a photographic laymen like me what causes these objects in simple terms? I just don't understand it at all, sorry!
agenteighty 2 years ago
You give a nice theoretical alternative explanation for what you believe to be happening on the NASA video. What's your explanation for the rest of the event? How was the gyroscope on the satellite powered off? Why caused the configuration of the satellite signals to change? How did the fuel tank become empty? How did the steering thruster valves become open? All of these changes require them to be turned off via remote control and the astronauts didn't do it. We know this because they said so.
gravyfactorydotcom 2 years ago
That's an interesting question, and i think if you trawl through the available NASA documents, you'll find your answer. Right now, i'm not inclined to do that for you, but as someone who works in the field of electronics (Laser Systems), i'm all too aware of the consequences of EMI on electronic systems, especially comms.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
The tether was burned through by a sustained electric arc, and anyone with any experience in managing suppression/immunity of RF with regard to electric arcs (e.g. welding, gas discharge in lasers) will relate stories of comms issues, including system crashes and erratic behaviour. There is no need to invoke notions of mysterious intervention on the part of aliens when we see it all the time on earth. I've experienced it myself, and i'm sure i recall reading a similar explanation from NASA.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Jeezus, it may be off-topic but, this video may have come through like 5 (or 6??) recorder (including the one the camera was hooked up to), i mean, copied. Typical artifact of analog magnetic recording is a horizontal snip-line that usually appears at the bottom (head drum switches from one head to another), but moves across the picture when the recorder is briefly tilted from sync. I see there like 5 of them. O.o
DragonFlyback256 2 years ago
And your point is?
O.o
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Sorry but i'm not sure whether you're talking about this video of the STS-75 footage. Either way, the nature of degradation through copying can usually be broken down into distortion/noise and artifacts such as the 'snip-line' you mentioned. There's enough consistency here between such artifacts to be able to verify that the appearance of the object is at worst slightly noisy/distorted but basically as depicted. That's my view anyway.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Sorry, i just mentioned an observation. Actually i have to correct myself on the numbers of snip-lines. perhaps only 3 or 4 at most. Other than that, there is no point here on the camera artifact itself.
DragonFlyback256 2 years ago
Great video. I'm glad someone with intelligence is flying the flag for a change.
Usually it's nut jobs stating every out of focus light in the sky is some kind of alien mothership. And they wonder why nobody takes the subject seriously.
FuManBoobs 2 years ago
Thanks mate :)
I rarely bother trying to debate the idiots these days. You might as well bang your head against a wall - it's pointless. The vast majority who argue are ignorant/uneducated, and if they are educated they're still ignorant, usually because they're outside their field but too damn arrogant to admit they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
finally another intelligent person, lol, thanks for the "scoop" I tried to make this point o may others but, well, they "religious" nuts wanna believe, cant convince them elsewise
goldgrif 2 years ago
Thanks mate :)
TBH i don't bother much these days - it's largely a waste of time. The vast majority of people on YouTube are complete fucking idiots sadly, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
The trouble is, people with poor judgement are incapable of accurately judging themselves or others. You cannot make them see sense no matter what - it's futile.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
The center of an airy disk, the material portion, passing in front of another object would block the light of the other object.
And if behind an object be blocked out.
Correct?
LBNANY 2 years ago
No.
What we're actually talking about here is a 'circle of confusion'. The circle of confusion, as imaged on the photocathode is many many times the diameter of the object from which it is formed. A spec of matter close to a camera focused at great distance or infinity will not block light from more distant objects just because they lie within the circle of confusion, because the circle of conclusion is false.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
It does not represent the true scale of the object, but is exagerrated because its image is focused behind the photocathode. The 'real' small spec will be essentially transparent to the objects behind. You can try this with a camera for yourself.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Unfortunately MoronAntidote you aren't living up to your name.
As you have shown with your arguments with morons here there simply is no antidote!
I don't know how you had the patience to argue with people that challenged you with no scientific or factual evidence and expected to be proved right!
steviemcsteve 2 years ago
Tell me about it mate.
I don't bother much these days, because the majority that post about this subject are indeed ignorant morons. I can do nothing about that.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
thank you, you've just shown that this is an de-focused image of a point light source, what you see is the immediate lens area and inside the lens barrel. the three notches are light measurement devices inside the lens barrel that sample the light for the cameras automatic systems. and the bar, you can see a cable or something across the lens when it is still pointed at the road, something very close to the lens.. thanks again..
denominator7 2 years ago
How do you explain the pulsating and curved trajectory of some of the "Debris" found in the sts video.
I'm not critisizing just interested to know your view point.
Namaste1001 3 years ago
the keyword seems to be "unknown" light source. I am still trying to understand how the camera focused on the tether would afford light sources moving.
GobbyBinty 3 years ago
hmm...well if the camera is focused on the tether how is the disc moving? And...how when the camera is pulled away are all the "debris" moving around the tether?
GobbyBinty 3 years ago
Comment removed
kissmytwinkys 3 years ago
I've seen enough of your abusive, ignorant and childish conspiracy theorist crap. Why should i let you poison the comments section of this video too? People like you totally justify censorship.
Good riddance.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
This makes a lot of sense, too bad, I was hoping that it really was some new type of being , a kind of plasmatic life from we did not know about and just discovered by chance.
fernandoluis7 3 years ago
AaaaHahahaha!!! Perfect antidote to the UFO Dimentia being exhibited on all those broken tether videos!
Perfect!!!
satweavers 3 years ago
Everyone please watch a video entitled 'Notch UFO-1' by Dickfez.
It's a great demonstration of the same camera artifact.
watch?v=jOJXlFR3yYc&feature=channel_page
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Well I have heard and seen so much on youtube, but, moronantidote, has a mission in life to tell us all what we are seeing is all false.
What ever hapenned to the saying, 'a picture tells a thousand words'
IT'S REAL FOLKS!
ssminow9 3 years ago
So are you telling me that you actually believe the old saying "cameras never lie"? Go ask a photographer, or better still get yourself a camera and see for yourself just how easy it is to conjure UFOs from mundane objects.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Too bad you forgot to focus in the closer view.
doginstine 3 years ago
Are you blind?
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
That clears that up. Good for you. I knew id find a rational explanation with a bit of digging.
Such an obvious one too. the whole oscillation/varying displacement thing I think is what was subconciously making me not want to believe those objects were that huge. It just didn't look right to me.
wekemo 3 years ago
eugh now i can sleep : )
atypicalcalifornian 3 years ago
Good for you :)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
yea when i originally saw the footage I was thinking there was a good explanation for it somewhere
atypicalcalifornian 3 years ago
Also check a video entitled 'Notch UFO-1' by Dickfez. It's a wonderful demonstration of the same camera artifact using a Panasonic 5100HS camera.
watch?v=jOJXlFR3yYc&feature=channel_page
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
It's superimposed piccie, even the pixel squares are totally the wrong size for the rest of the sky, and a crap splicing job in Photoshop!
KaOssis 3 years ago
Incorrect!
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Incorrect!
No cigar for you :P
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
I am of course referring to the actual STS-75 vid
GeneralJoint 2 years ago
I realise that.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Lol, it's a lampost!
KaOssis 3 years ago
Can you tell me what exactly this proves other than the objects in that NASA video were out of focus? I'm sorry I don't quite follow
idStarfleet 3 years ago
So you don't think the fact they are out of focus tells you anything at all?
How about: they can't be behind the tether and don't really look like discs with notches for a start?
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
QUESTION: We know that aiming a camera at a street lamp can produce this "notched" effect in the lens. Here the camera aims at a star. Both are real objects that appear to be bright lights.
So.... what were the objects that are seen moving about in the Teather vid? Forget the notch shape caused by the lens. That's not the point. What are the objects moving about? Seriously, are they ice crystals moving on their own? What is it?
Anonologist 3 years ago
The camera in this video is not aimed at a star or a street lamp, but the nature of the object is not important.
If you watch the objects in the STS-75 video, those which change direction all eventually head in the direction of Earth's center of mass (the tether points down towards it). Space is not a vacuum at the shuttle's altitude and the ionospheric drag at ~17500mph is sufficient to decelerate tiny low mass particles, causing loss of altitude. IMO they're ice particles behaving naturally
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
The notches are nothing more than camera artifacts produced by the camera's insides. Normal cameras have irises that produce the so called "diamond" shape some so called "UFOs" have when placed out of focus.
Tommyr 3 years ago
Correct!
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Very good example. it shows very well how the star it is no more a star in the image, but a disc (airy disc), a defocused image, who imitates somehow the shape of the pupil entrance of the lens or other physical characteristics (construction aspects), and even that cable in front is replicated on the disc shape. The notches of the discs are very similar to the NASA video.
Good example!
depth0ffield 3 years ago
Glad you like the video :)
The 'cable' you refer to is interesting, as it shows how nearfield obstructions (for example internal lens structures) will be superimposed on a defocused light source regardless of its position within the field of view. Sometimes the 'cable' moves out of the way completely, but whenever it enters the FOV (seen as a broad, faint, dark band), it produces a shadow on the disc.
Nice proof that notches will appear simultaneously on any number of defocused sources!
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think of David Sereda's claim that if one of the NASA cameras is focused on a distant object, all near-field objects must come into focus as well? Is he mistaken/lying? Is he assuming that the camera that filmed the tether incident was ever brought into proper focus in the first place?
boxkitty 3 years ago
I'm wondering what make and model of camera was this.
Because I was once very much into backyard astronomy, I am aware of how unfocussed bright objects can appear in reflecting telescopes. The secondary mirror is within the path of the primary mirror and would show up as a dark circle in unfocussed images.
Perhaps this camera had a front optical glass with a secondary mirror attached on the inside which bounced light straight back through a hole in the primary (to condense focal length).
zetetic0void 3 years ago
This is the Sport Model of Bob Lazar!
Hansolo60 3 years ago
Thanks for the first level-headed analysis of such things that I've ever seen. If people would simply apply Occam's Razor once in awhile before jumping off into wild speculation we'd know a lot more about these phenomena.
xphobe 3 years ago
Moronattitude:
I have read some information on why the center whole gets larger as you zoom in. Which would be something of a lens issue.
Where I am stuck on is that in the Tether vid, there are tons of objects moving independently all different directions.
If you could help me there. I appreciate the effort to post your vid.
JA
jpappl 3 years ago
The comedy of this is that I am a skeptic but this a farce. Anyone who has looked at this in any serious manner don't buy this as an explanation, debris yes, camera artifacts no.
The reason is you had to move the camera to create the movement of one object. In the NASA vid, there are many items moving independently of each other. That can be debris but not lens issues.
I have a question. Does anyone know if the zooming in on some of the larger objects was by NASA or the presenter ?
jpappl 3 years ago
In the city of Monterrey, Mexico, was filmed something very similar with a powerfull security full collor camera,
pepecas74 3 years ago
What a joke. I started out in this as a total skeptic but unlike some I can see hoaxers on both sides.
You managed to re-create 1 item that isn't even on par with the true look of what was captured on the Nasa film. Lets see you make a ton of them all criss crossing around at various speeds never running into each other and by the way NASA says it's all debris not camera issues.
I am a skeptic but I am beginning to smell rats.
To Ihateyou.. You going to buy that crap ?
jpappl 3 years ago
Great Job MoronAntdidote.
I would further add, that the comments about the discs passing behind the tether are false.
CCD chips saturate with a certain amount of light, the tether is bright, and anything passing in front with the refelcted light will just saturate the chip more, and not record the extra info, thus appearing like the disc is passing behind...
I have a 16" newtonian and the so called notches are classic of a finder tube shadow in a defocused situation. rest are DUSTMOTES
solaryellow123 3 years ago
I wonder why a well known scientist like sereda missed this explination.Whats your opinion on the other sts videos where objects change direction at high speed.
kdwvxr 3 years ago
They proved this object is light reflecting off the lens or shotter in side the camera its not the accual shape of a craft, I think the show was UFO hunters
xeno4ever13 3 years ago
Very Good.
Now add about 40 others, moving in different directions at different speeds, pulsing, changing direction and when zooming out still appear to be 100 nautical miles away.
Then I'll give you a Chocolate bar.
cosa59 3 years ago
No need. It doesn't matter how many objects there are, the same optical phenomena will apply. There is no mystery about the number of objects in the STS-75 footage. Read up on water dumps and payload bay debris.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
That may explain the shapes of the image that we see, but how does that explain the movements made by those 'mundane' objects, knowing very well how objects move in space? That cannot be explained by your theory of what you are seeing.
GeneralJoint 2 years ago
Why would you think that a demonstration of a camera artifact should explain the physical movement?
Surely you realise that the study of STS-75 footage involves principles across a broad range of disciplines? It is not necessary for a demonstration of an optical principle to explain all aspects of the footage in order to be valid.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
That's an out-of-focus Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope with someone waving a stick in front of it, and wobbling the mount.
TroyaE117 3 years ago
The notches move around the UFO's on the NASA video, These ones are always vertical. Also In the NASA video notches point in different direction on different objects it the same frame. If this were a camera effect shouldn't they all point in the same direction.
Also why do you think the teather itself is visable?
2012Steve2012 3 years ago
"The notches are merely shadows of the lens guide shafts, and as the object moves vertically within the field of view, various combination's of upper and lower shafts impinge upon the image" How many lens guide shafts do these cameras have? You are talking about 30-50 different anomalies in the sts-75 video all present at the same time at different angles and depths. SURELY lens guide shaft shadows are not touching every single one of these anomalies at the same time? Try again.
TurkeyBurgersM3 3 years ago
With the aperture wide open, the image produced by ANY OBJECT close enough to be this out of focus will be impinged by obstructions within the lens barrel. The angle of an object w.r.t. the optical axis will affect which obstructions come into play, which is why the notches fade top/bottom as the object and camera move relative to one another. The notches are visible wherever the object is within the FOV, and any number of additional objects will follow the same position dependant notch pattern.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
This is a fact. If you think otherwise, buy a camera.
I do not need to "try again" as you put it.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
I think you doo need to try again , this looks nothing like the actual nasa footage .
wakeupsense 2 years ago
Shoulda gone to Specsavers :P
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
hey just check out the background communication of ground control on the tether! i put it up they even admit in a few sentences that theres ufos being filmed! please this is great proof! you can hear what they said!
boxa888 2 years ago
I checked it alright.
Is this some kind of joke?
If not then you have some serious cognitive issues. You can't just invent whatever you like and present it as proof to people you know.
No wonder the internet is full of idiots!
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
You can think what you like mate. Your problem is that you're incapable of distinguishing a principle from irrelevant cosmetic details, and don't realise that it doesn't matter how many objects there are, they will all be subject to the same principle. This video and the principle it illustrates has nothing to do with your need to understand why so many objects were present, though this is no less explainable. You need to learn to isolate different aspects before you can understand such matters.
MoronAntidote 2 years ago
Here is my question. If the lines on the anomaly presented in this video featured are coming from shadows of the lens guide shafts, then how come in the sts-75 video footage we see the lines presented more than once, in fact many times, all at the same time, all in different directions at the very same time? Thank you for your time.
TurkeyBurgersM3 3 years ago
im with you.. but do the camera artifacts explain the motion and pulsing of the disc shapes, and also the swimming objects too. your artifact is static and still, there were an awful lot of objects swimming around, could they be explained as camera artifacts also, just curious not judgmental thanks for your post..
theleeburton 3 years ago
thanks for your little experiment, i watched the D Serada video yesterday and was intrigued, i suspected lens flares or something.
Now i'm convinced and also mr Serada is a nutjob! :)
I believe we are not alone but i have yet to see real factual evidence.
Also if you want a good laugh there's a guy on youtube who claims the jpeg artifacts (clearly!) on recent mars photos are artificial structures, he's serious about it too! :)
raheem78 3 years ago
Why are there som many "airy discs" in the sts 75 video? There were so many of them , overlapping, pulsating light, different sizes... why don't you give an example of this same thing if it is merely a "camera artifact"? Why do you only show one "airy disc" that is stationary, instead of dozens of different sizes, with some of them pulsating light? Is this type of camera artifact only possible in outer space?
coffeeat2am 3 years ago
Interesting video thanks - i was looking on the world wide telescope are there are hundreds of these objects on there, kind of explains it a bit more. Take a look on the WWT and see them for yourself
elanna123 3 years ago
And how do you explain the overwhelming QUANTITY of these pulsating, donut-shaped, mobile objects with "bites" in the corner seen in the STS-75 footage? This is just one object that can easily be rationalised by saying it's simply a camera defect. This is not similar to the SWARM of swift moving objects in the NASA video of the "tether incident". And no one from NASA has yet to explain what they were, so why do you think you can?
jen0619 3 years ago
The object is clearly pulsating, and you call it "ordinary"?
spaceship100 3 years ago
ok is all about zooming at a source of light probably like in the case of sts75 video but do you want compare a camera like this with a digital ccd camera like the camera mounted on shuttle? This error of video capture is not moving like the objects in the sts75 video, there are a lot of difference.
weboy78 3 years ago
Great video. Only one thing. This shape similar to the sts-75 footage, is produced by a single static point of light in the sky(no dust,no debris).
OK, in the sts-75 footage, we can see the same shape, caused probably by other lights (no dust), moving constantly. Mystery is still unsolved, for me. Thank you again for this great video
Isaak543dom 3 years ago
Nice try but... this looks NOTHING like those pulsating disks in the STS-75 video. The camera was at a fixed position while the disks are moving at different directions both front and back of tether.
UFO666Watcher 3 years ago
The tether is glowing because it is generating electricity using the Earths magnetic field. That was the purpose of the experiment.
Also the "camera artifacts" in this video don't pulse or move around like the STS ones.
Kullg4r 3 years ago
I believe that any and all anomalous ufo type events can be explained rationally, however I would urge smart people like MoronAntidote to read some of the bigger books by Timothy Good to get an idea of the sheer amount of great sightings (particularly with radar evidence) that have been made by intelligent people the world over. Also, please read something by Jacques Vallee (Dimensions). Once read please give us your opinion on what the phenomenon is. Thanks for this vid.
IHATEYOUDICKHOLES 3 years ago
wow you guys got some great names
drjackripper 3 years ago
I admit I greatly leaned to the opinion that they were "ufo's" of some type all these years. Now I can finally say that the single greatest piece of video "evidence" for ufo's no longer exists, that's a simple fact. Silly that it took this easy to swallow reproduction to hammer this home and that an explaination would not suffice. Could people please comment on why they seemed to be moving in sts footage but very stationary here? CONTINUED....
IHATEYOUDICKHOLES 3 years ago
First, excuse my name, this account was set up merely to hurl abuse at the reams of a-holes and r-tards posting useless vids on youtube, that explained...
Thanks very much for this vid! First bit of real palpable analysis (with great detailed description, half of which went over my head but oh well) that I've seen on the subject. I watched this years ago on tv and have been fascinated ever since, you don't know the amount of times I've watched this footage. CONTINUED...
IHATEYOUDICKHOLES 3 years ago
Looking forward to your thoughts about why the tether is visible. I'm especially puzzled about why it's visible when the full length is visible.
I don't know its inclination away -- it could be we can only effectively see 1 or 2 km length. Even then, though, in some segments we must be viewing 4 km + across, and the tether is a tiny tiny fraction of this.
Anyhow, I'll check in now and then.
smhhms2000 3 years ago
is that the moon or what?...what is that?
it doesn't look like an artifact it looks like a strange light in the sky.
NWM11Bravo 3 years ago
Thanks for the post. The only difference is this is not pulsating or rotating or even moving like the ones in the STS 75 footage
Kazmology 3 years ago
Not sure wat the light is, but the shape is just internal reflection within the lens. Before zoom in an object can be seen obscuring the lens (camera strap?) this same object is repeated in the 'ufo'. MA is right, this effect will be repeated next time you zoom into a bright point of light, and set it out of focus. I do like the effect tho.
DucknDoo 3 years ago
Camera lens artifacts are one thing. Recording what the eye also sees is quite another. On the footage of sts-80, someone one the ground asks one of the astronauts to explain what they were seeing, to which he responded, "there is a lot of debris that follows us." I.e., we were seeing space junk, not lens artifacts.
goodsnservices 3 years ago
goodsnservices, the pass-behind-effect is an optical illusion. In nutshell: Effective diameter of the tether is about 3/4". Due to
overexposure by sun, it appears hundreds of feet wide. A small, defocused nearby floating ice particle can't defeat this 'light power'. Hence it happens nothing, if the particle crosses the tether - what exactly gives the
illusion the particle passed behind the tether. Note the notched ring shape comes from a mirrored telephoto-lens. That's all!
;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
You don't have to try to convince me sacha, its obvious as far as i'm concerned. I'm curious how you arrive at 3/4" effective diameter though. Could you explain this?
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
MoronAntidote, go to NASA site, there you can find all technical data about STS-missions.
If you are immune against facts, I can't help further. Otherwise, I'd take a look behind the
physics of the incident, as explained by James Oberg - or right here on YT:
Search and watch 'History Channel UFO Hunters 113 The NASA Files' (5parts)
;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
Sacha, i don't understand why you think i'm immune to the facts. I'm not disputing anything 'official' in relation to STS-75. I have read every damn thing i can find on the subject (physics included) and i personally have no doubts concerning the official explanation. This video is intended as an example of how cameras can produce the notches seen during the STS-75 footage, not an argument for alien spacecraft. Maybe you should read some of my comments.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Sorry, it was an over-reaction.
sacha4you 3 years ago
No problem :)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Agreed goodsnservices. David Sereda pretty much debunked the airy disc theory for the tether incident anyway.
MetaKoola 3 years ago
Actually, Sereda completely failed to debunk the airy disc theory.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
goodnservices, i don't think it is possible to claim with any certainty that the astronauts were describing what they saw using only their eyes. They could just have easily been giving their opinion on what they saw via the CCTV system. However, if this was the case then i believe their experience was sufficient to identify the source of camera artifacts. Unlike people watching the video, they were able to observe these objects from the time of their appearance, possibly tied to an event.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
You make a very valid point.The problem is die hard believers want it to be true and will say anything to make it that way.Where as die hard skeptics will do the exact opposite.You have taken an educated and scientific approach, this is what is needed. Everyone should be aware of the tricks light plays on us .Add an optical device(which is by no means perfect)refraction of light or unfocussed images and who knows what is real. I do believe in "ufos". All I want is facts, no hear say.
maythetruthbeknown 3 years ago
Thanks :)
I just want to get to the truth too.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
You ask "I'm curious though - why is it always up to the skeptics to do the leg work?".
Well I am one of those pesky amateur astronomers who saw UFOs frequently (in my case 3 times) in my late-teen years during long nightly Luna observations -at least before I grew into an old fart scared of the cold. Sadly nothing seen as an adult as a result... fwiw I think the tether objects are living, curious-minded entities but I assure you I am quite sane :-)
nashnosh 3 years ago
if a filmed UFO looked like an out-of-focus doughnut, then it would be a UFO or out-of-focus doughnut?
I am hesitant to always believe things that visually walk like a duck and quack like a duck are always...ducks. Look how the Bentwaters case 'lighthouse explanation' was recently demolished. Many experts hung their reps on that one.
A still photo is one thing, but I have no film to view as yet re my challenge. Notches out, but jury still out for me. Thanks for replies.
nashnosh 3 years ago
You're welcome. The problem is, the notched donuts only appear when the camera zooms in. If you watch the zoom adjustment scenes, you can clearly see the form (admittedly poorly defined) of the objects responsible, and they look like random particles tumbling in space. I don't see anything suggestive of craft there. The movement may be odd, but if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, yet moves in ways which are unknown to 'some' duck watchers, it isn't always a spacecraft ;)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Whether a still or video, the same principle applies. It's not really a challenge, since anyone can prove the principle using a camera (care to try?), but if anything crops up i'll let you know. I'm curious though - why is it always up to the skeptics to do the leg work? Afterall, i'm not the one arguing against the official explanation.
Also, you made no attempt to refute the important issue of motion parallax.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
'Also, you made no attempt to refute the important issue of motion parallax.'
MA, I spent in the order of three to four hours measuring objects and charting their movements relative to the tether. I recorded 'internal' coordinates in sections. I can sen all of this. I hope you can give some detail so that I can look for the parallex effects. The only thing that strikes me is the lack of such effects, but then maybe I'm not looking at the right objects, there are a lot of them! :-)
smhhms2000 3 years ago
I'm working on it. I must admit it's not as pronounced as i first thought, but i have certainly found something. I think part of the problem is the barrel distortion which occurs with near objects at long zoom. This has the effect of decreasing magnification as a function of distance from the optical axis, producing a non-linear compression of oscillation magnitude (i'm focusing on an event which occurs in the upper portion of the FOV, as it is the most pronounced). Later :)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Thank for posting this fascinating footage. It does seem to offer a clue to the 'notch' aspect of the Tether footage. I always felt that the Tether footage is staggeringly important (direction changes, swarming, going behind distant tether) but the notches of these illuminated objects were an artifact, all pointing to the same o'clock position which nailed it for me. Explaning away the notches doesn't lessen the evidence these are craft, in many ways, it now helps.
nashnosh 3 years ago
Thanks, though i'm puzzled how this can possibly help the theory that they are spacecraft. If you accept this explanation for the notches, then you must also accept that they are very small objects in front of the camera. You cannot accept one without the other. So, are they really tiny little spacecraft in front of the camera which just so happen to resemble random particles of ice/debris tumbling in space? Curious ;)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
hi, well I'm not convinced that the objects going behind the tether is an artifact. Someone needs to show me an example of that (like you did for the notches). Show me a vid of some close, small objects going behind a distant object. Any takers?
nashnosh 3 years ago
Well firstly, this notched donut appearance occurs because the object is way out of focus, due to the camera being focused far into the distance. In the case of STS-75, this implies that the objects are in front of the tether (the object of focus). Secondly, measurement of the motion parallax visible during the many camera oscillation events, reveals that they are in the foreground. As i said, you can't accept the notch explanation without also accepting that they are not behind the tether.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Btw, there are plenty of photographs around which prove that a farfield object can appear in front of a nearfield object. A quick search found a nice picture of the ISS appearing in front of the crosshairs of the camera, similar in principle to many of the Apollo stills:
3 DoubleUs dot projectprove dot com slash Arts slash 075 slash 075 dot php
You could also prove it to yourself using a camera.
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
I am grateful for the illustration. I fully agree with you regarding principles, they are by nature general, and the way they apply depends upon specifics of a context. I'm also particularly interested in the gain, which is just going to produce a lot of noise, no doubt about that. Would you be willing to take a ball-park stab at how much small debris beyond a km or so away might be visible. I really cannot see how this so-called debris can be residual from incident given directions of motion.
smhhms2000 3 years ago
Excellent vid. I've been looking for credible evidence for or against these "objects" as extraterrestrial in origin, and most of what I found was absurd "for" arguments that had no real grounding in science (superluminal electromagnetic fields and such).
I wish more people would exercise a little skepticism first and actually seek truth rather than quickly accepting pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories just because they want something to be real.
zenkonami 3 years ago
Much appreciated :)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
It is great video MA. You say the displacement of the so called UFOs is "considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation". Could you point to a specific instance, with reference to the time on a copy of footage and x-y coordinates of the object expressed in units of 0.01 of the width and height of observable area? Most interested to see a case in point.
smhhms2000 3 years ago
"Something which is unproven is not necessarily impossible, but it remains a hypothesis awaiting evaluation, and will/should not be accepted as possible beforehand."
You kinda contradicted yourself there... "It's not necessarily impossible, but it's not possible" But I think I understand what you're trying to say. And unfortunately, I think I'm starting to agree that these are just rocks and chunks of ice. And they may have strange movement patterns, but it doesn't appear to be intelligent.
grayfox777 3 years ago
great video mate is it your own if you showed it to nasa they would tell you its debri ha its so simular to the tether video but except is up in the sky its deffo a ufo and not debri that nasa covers it up with
christophercannig 3 years ago
thanks much for this..
that was the same i told to this motherfucker david sereda.. he didnt even read thru it or notice it.. hes a fucking loser and no real researcher.. fuck him!
great job!!!
microbot23 3 years ago
LOL
Did you post on Sereda's blog? If so, it's possible i read it myself. The man actually wants NASA to send him into space so he can play silly buggers with ice and debris. It'll never happen of course, but it's amusing to imagine a fight breaking out on the flight deck, with Sereda becoming the first man to experience EVA minus a space suit. Several people even posted "Please send David Sereda into space, and leave him there". Evil, but understandable i'd say ;)
Thanks :)
MoronAntidote 3 years ago
Why is that these kind of negative comments from skeptics can stay but ones by UFO nutz can't? This isn't civil discussion.
Keranu 3 years ago
good job,it's sometimes the simple things we overlook.
meteorlima 3 years ago
this settles the case for me. thanks.
tachawmw 4 years ago
You're welcome mate :)
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
That is similar to the objects in the STS footage. However, u need to consider a few things:
1st, the image u are showing is obviously a static object that isn't moving. The STS objects are NOT static.
2nd, the notches aren't the same as the STS objects. Whatever produced this image didn't produce those.
3rd, this object isn't pulsing. The STS objects are.
4th, the edges are sharp. The amount of zoom that u use cannot possibly produce such sharp edges. The STS objects have dull edges.
dayati 4 years ago
1) The object is not static and does in fact move diagonally later in the video. Whether or not the object is static is irrelevant - the same camera artifacts apply. Tether objects are all moving at around 17500mph - so what?
2) The notches are practically identical and i can't imagine why you think otherwise. An observable principle cannot be refuted outright when slight differences are expected under different conditions, using a similar lens construction on a different camera.
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
3) Why would it be pulsing? It is not tumbling the way the objects do in the tether video. With the NASA camera, objects which are out of focus produce a flat donut regardless of their true shape, and because they are irregular in shape and tumbling (see the zoomed out scenes), obviously this produces a flat donut with a cyclic light pattern. Out of focus + irregular in shape + tumbling = flat donut with cyclic light pattern. This is kid's stuff!
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
4) The camera in the tether footage is an image intensified (gain in the low thousands) SIT Vidicon tube type, focused on the tether almost 100 miles away, during orbital sunrise, with tiny pieces of ice/debris drifting about close by. This is a CCTV camera badly focused on a much larger and more intense light source perhaps a mile away. The lenses may be similar, but that's about it, so comparing the edge definition is like comparing apples with oranges. Understand - this is about a priniciple!
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
Why is it when people want to believe there is something paranormal about STS-75, they suspend common sense? I've noticed a common trait in such people, whereby they become fixated on the smallest differences and claim that they are enough to discredit a theory, when they are really expected variations in the manifestation of a basic principle under varying conditions.
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
1) Your object is stationary. That's your camera jerking around. The STS objects clearly move. Some even CHANGE DIRECTION. Can you explain that?
2) I'll bite. I was just pointing out the subtle difference.
3) I'm sorry, I don't buy the "out of focus, tumbling" theory. As the camera zooms in, you can see them clearly. They aren't out of focus.
4) The edges are important. The STS objects have a 3D contour to them. Your object seems very 2D. Almost flat.
dayati 3 years ago
I think the exact same could be said about skeptics. Both sides are fixated on proving a point.
Keranu 3 years ago
@MoronAntidote Firstly i think you are awesome! for replying to so many comments over years! now :-) i have spent the last hour reading some comments here and your rebuttle.! good job!
Just a thought that crossed my mind with regard to the Tether objects moving at 17500 mph .. wouldn't even the shuttle be moving at that speed also? much like driving next to someone both driving 50mph wouldn't you seem to be static?
Lansky73 1 year ago
disinfo!!
gtirlad 4 years ago
And the evidence for this is where? Please don't mention David Sereda's videos or The Disclosure Project :P
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
its a security light reflecting back its on the corner of the building you can see the horisontal line of the building the small hills in the back ground make the buildings size look out of context
ango67 4 years ago
sorry i meant 80 which i think youve commented about before - also david sereda seems like he makes stuff up and like you say wants to sell videos.
ash0787 4 years ago
Thanks for the video and explanations, i have realised these particular objects are not craft. Its pretty obvious they're not going behind the tether, the out of focus objects are 'overwritten' by the stronger light of the tether. there is a short video with one of these images and it seems as if its traveling below the clouds, i guess this is similar to the long distance effect seen here. you say somewhere that you believe ET exists, what are your views on sts 85 and belgium 1990-1991.
ash0787 4 years ago
you're also censoring the replys?
moeizoptik 4 years ago
It is my right to prevent offensive, stupid, or just plain crazy people from posting their drivel in response to this video. I don't censor opposing points of view if they are relevant and from reasonable people. I see nothing wrong in that, and i'd be grateful if you'd respect it. Thankyou.
BTW you are not actually discussing this video. It is not about aliens or spacecraft. It is about cameras and optical artifacts. Please remember that before you thrust your beliefs upon me.
MoronAntidote 4 years ago
wow, you once again proved like many others before that objects, which reflect or produce light, can become airy discs, which describes almost everything, even a ufo (or spacecraft).
so whats the point? have you really thought out your arguments? i doesn't seems so...
how does the information contained by your "experiment" proves that these are NOT space crafts?
tell me, whats the difference between debris that is reflecting light and a spacecraft that is reflecting light?
moeizoptik 4 years ago
Yes i have thought out my arguments, though it is clear you have missed their implications. You cannot acknowledge that any light source (reflected or otherwise) can become an out of focus airy disc without considering why, and what it tells you under the circumstances. Firstly, in the case of STS-75, it tells you that the objects are not behind the tether, and therefore not 3 miles wide.
MoronAntidote 4 years ago