A CCTV camera tracking an unknown light source in Little Hulton, UK on September 12th 1993. When out of focus, the object appears donut shaped with notches which shift according to it's position within the field of view. Notice also the onset of barrel distortion as the object approaches the optical periphery. The dark diagonal line is merely the shadow of a strand-like object immediately in front of the lens. Whatever the nature of the light source (probably nothing out of the ordinary), this footage is a classic demonstration of how anomalous objects can be conjured through improper use of a camera lens.
These camera artifacts are very similar to those present in NASA's STS-75 tether footage. The camera's zoom lens was probably similar in construction to NASA's MLA*, with 3 guide shafts supporting the lenses (1 vertically opposed to a close pair), and a rotating barrel with cam grooves which displaced the lenses along the optical axis. The notches are merely shadows of the lens guide shafts, and as the object moves vertically within the field of view, various combinations of upper and lower shafts impinge upon the image (the zoom setting is also a factor).
* Monochrome Lens Assembly, fitted to NASA's SIT Vidicon tube cameras.
The donut appearance is often described as an 'airy disc' (named after George Airy). This is a contentious issue, as many people simply google the term and find themselves viewing a computer generated model (ideal) of an aperture induced diffraction pattern. Such models are often enhanced in order to illustrate the faint outer concentric rings produced by constructive/destructive interference of light waves which are out of phase. For some reason, the distinction between an 'airy disc' and an 'airy pattern' is often completely overlooked, leading to unwarranted dismissal of the airy disc theory in the absence of visible outer rings. In reality, the term 'airy disc' merely describes the bright centre of an 'airy pattern' and therefore does not require the presence of visible outer rings. Matters are further complicated when an object is out of focus, which with certain lens configurations results in this donut appearance. Astronomers are known to deliberately defocus stars in order to check the collimation of reflector telescopes, and often refer to the result as an 'out of focus airy disc'.
Unlike NASA's STS-75 tether footage, this video shows a single out of focus object. This is unfortunate, as i believe that if the camera were focussed on a bright more distant object, that object would actually appear to be in the foreground (the same optical illusion responsible for tales of 3 miles wide UFOs 'behind' the tether). Many people seem unable to accept this concept, despite it being intuitively obvious and well understood by those who frequently use cameras. I could attempt an explanation, but experience suggests that it would be futile. Instead i am going to pose a question: During the STS-75 tether footage, the camera oscillates on it's pan/tilt unit following remote aim adjustment. If the so-called UFOs were really behind the tether, then why was their displacement considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation? The only plausible explanation is that the so-called UFOs were actually in the foreground. This basic principle (motion parallax) can be appreciated by anyone with a pair of eyes, and is therefore not easily dismissed due to lack of relevant experience.
On the subject of SIT Vidicon tube cameras: Certain individuals insist on claiming that Vidicon cameras were only used prior to 1990, in an effort to discredit official STS-75 analyses, and support bogus UV sensitive camera claims by David Sereda. I strongly suspect the source of this misinformation to be www.wikipedia.org. I would like to remind people that while Wikipedia is great, it is an open source encyclopedia, and as such can never be considered reliable. I very much doubt that the person who added the entry for 'Vidicon camera tube' was even aware that NASA used such devices. Anyway, here is a sample of the many documents and videos which prove that Vidicon cameras were in use up to 1997:
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/23.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/120/7/pdf/i1520-0493-120-7-1459.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970011045_1997015729.pdf
(Press ctrl+f and enter 'black-and-white' in the search field)
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP207193.pdf
(Press ctrl+f and enter 'MLA' in the search field)
Vidicon footage from STS-82 (6:48-7:08 and 11:22-11:42):
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttlevideos/shuttle82.htm
Comments and mature logical discussion are welcome, but posts containing such phrases as "the truth is out there" and "wake up people", or anything which implies some form of conspiracy will be blocked with great pleasure ;)
Loading...
@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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago
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
@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
@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
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