Jump to content

Evolutionary Science And Its Implications


Chinahand
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Let's do this one then.

 

Did you notice the pattern of notches on the circles? How the patterns change as the circles progress across the scene, but that the pattern of notches in any particular part of the scene is the same on different circles, regardless of their size? Does this suggest to you that the notching is an artefact of the camera optics? What do you think that implies about the size of the objects? Do you know about point spread functions in optical observations?

 

no i dont .. are you an opical physicist then..??

 

Do you know how CCDs work? Do you understand the concept of overexposure in CCD pixels? What happens if a dim object passes in front of a bright object that has reached a CCD pixel's maximum response? What does that look like in motion?

 

no .. would you without googling it..?? .. theres plenty of optical specialist who have come to the conclusion that they are solid objects passing behind the tether and in 2 hour long vids demonstrate exactly whats going on .. their qualifications outstrip any manx forums users and i will take their unbiased opinions over your biased one ta.

 

If the objects are passing behind the tether (at 80 miles range) what does this imply about the size of the objects? You can make an educated guess based on geometry. What does this size imply? Should the objects have been visible anywhere else?

 

using the tether as a rule makes some of them in excess of a mile in diameter.

 

Do you know what happens to waste water on the space shuttle? Do you know whether there was a waste flush before this film? What do you think happens to the waste water when it is flushed? What would the results of a flush look like in these conditions?

 

no do you know whether one of them had a shit and flushed prior to the shuttle losing the tether..??

 

To my mind, these are all questions that anyone viewing this film should have asked themselves. Presumably you have?

 

your right many many times .. and ice crystals taking right or left turns whilst all around them nothing else deviates etc just doesnt do it for me...

 

start the vid at 2mins 52 secs and witch the light source that enters at pace bottom right of frame watch it violently swerve around a stationary ice crystal 4/5 seconds later .. pause the vid at the exact moment that it happens .. replay it and watch any other objects in close proximity on screen none not any deviate from there trajectories not one .. was it only them pixels that were playing a trick.

no-one can deny it makes a manouver that is quite extrordinary.

 

stop/start the vid at around 3mins 50secs and tell me why that object is clearly being divided by the tether on top of it as the camera sees it

 

Dave

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

great post .. do you mind enlightening me.

 

Somehow, I doubt anyone would be able to enlighten you about anything this side of Christmas 2087.

ah right in other words a look at me post .. short on content and superficial .. like you really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that ofcourse is a well known piece of footage china. and again is plausible denial .. as it has been disected many times the so called ice crystal from memory stops dead for about 0.3 of a second before changing direction an impossible feat .. however did i include that in my 3 clips .. again you just try to muddy the waters. .. i left it out because to me it isnt cut and dried it probably is ice and they have used the same excuse ever since.

 

Most of your videos are various zoom ins on

.

 

The shuttles thrusters are fired at about 21 seconds. The astronaut taking the footage explains that in the popular mechanics article.

 

and your point being .. as i was already aware of the thrusters and dont believe in coincidence that much hence why i would never try and show that clip as anything more than it is.. .. imo debris. ..

 

all the star wars weapons talk etc was and will remain bullshit ..

 

again tho you seem happy to debunk claims that havent been levelled at you by me or anyone else. try sticking to the 3 clips i put up.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manxman2 - you make reference to using the tether's length to estimate size - can you please use the video to estimate the width of the image of the tether - my guess 100s of feet, maybe more. Now can you tell me - how wide is the tether in actual fact?

 

Does this tell you anything about distortion in the pictures you are taking.

 

Both Dr Dave and I are trying to lead you to water - I admit the drinking part is up to you, but please understand the video you are fixating on is massively distorted and flared out - when you say you are seeing things going behind the tether all you are seeing is one set of flared out pixels merging with another set of flared out pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no .. would you without googling it..??

 

Don't you wonder what kind of Doctor Dr Dave is? :)

 

no nor do i care.

 

if he put his wiki page up and was an esteemed optical physicist i would listen intently .. have i missed the post where he has done that..??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manxman2 - you make reference to using the tether's length to estimate size - can you please use the video to estimate the width of the image of the tether - my guess 100s of feet, maybe more. Now can you tell me - how wide is the tether in actual fact?

 

you can see the structure of the tether at the beginning of the clip china .. you will also see it coil up when it breaks ..

 

Does this tell you anything about distortion in the pictures you are taking.

 

Both Dr Dave and I are trying to lead you to water - I admit the drinking part is up to you, but please understand the video you are fixating on is massively distorted and flared out - when you say you are seeing things going behind the tether all you are seeing is one set of flared out pixels merging with another set of flared out pixels.

 

i am fully aware of the possible distortions as i have watched countless times proffesional debunker againt opical specialists who have unloaded their armouries of equipment on the tapes .. i cannot go with the ice crystal theories full stop.

and you or anyone else talking down to me as if i am some kind of retard that needs handling with kid gloves will not change my opinion an opinion i have reached over several years and on alot more data than just those 3 clips.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am fully aware of the possible distortions as i have watched countless times proffesional debunker againt opical specialists who have unloaded their armouries of equipment on the tapes .. i cannot go with the ice crystal theories full stop.

 

 

Why haven't modern cameras in recent missions picked up more detailed images of these mile long UFO's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah right in other words a look at me post .. short on content and superficial .. like you really.

 

No, it was a light hearted observation that you didn't get. That's cool, it wasn't directed at you and there's so much other stuff in this thread you don't get so I can hardly expect you to stop frothing at the mouth to worry yourself about it. Perhaps if you weren't so heavily entrenched in youtube conspiracy drama, you'd stop to realise what a poorly educated, boorish, belligerent and deeply misguided little man you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow isn't it amazing - Manxman2 is fixating on the tether and two fuzzy videos.

 

In all 3 the astronauts who have taken the videos have explained what is going on - they and other knowledgeable people all say all 3 are due to ice crystals etc in orbit close to the shuttle, either in orbit around it or moving away as a result of the pitch and roll thrusters firing to maintain shuttle trim.

 

The logs of the events are available, there is the direct testimony of the people operating the camera, and expert commentary explaining how the tether is 1cm wide 77 nautical miles away, but how the flare produced by it reflecting the sun is whiting out the camera making it look thousands of times thicker in the image.

 

And what do we have - we have MM2 posting up 1/2 the internet insisting its alien technology - certain that the fuzzy blobs are moving behind a camera flare etc etc etc.

 

This is your best evidence MM2 - well - good for you. Its crap. It doesn't stand up. It makes you sound like a crack pot.

 

an astronaut talking about ice crystals while filming using a higher quality camera (though the quality isn't that good as this good footage has then been videoed by a videocamera from a TV and then put onto Youtube) - listen to what the astronaut is saying. Shudders I can see MM2 ranting about triangles - is it worth the bother.

 

 

you should watch martin stubbs original footage then china .. but you have to buy it..

 

do you really in your wildest fuuking dreams think i have based after all these years my opinion on a couple of youtube clips.

 

your dripping condesention is starting to wear a bit thin.. however i fully re-alise it is being deployed to bully me out of the conclusion i have come to after watching said footage 100s if not 1000s of times over the last 10 years . and nopt coming to the same conclusion as you .

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you notice the pattern of notches on the circles? How the patterns change as the circles progress across the scene, but that the pattern of notches in any particular part of the scene is the same on different circles, regardless of their size? Does this suggest to you that the notching is an artefact of the camera optics? What do you think that implies about the size of the objects? Do you know about point spread functions in optical observations?

 

no i dont .. are you an opical physicist then..??

 

I have a number of relevant qualifications, yes. I'll help you out... A point spread function is how an optical system responds to a small light source. Basically, the lens has a minimum size that all smaller objects will be represented as (as a function of their brightness). This is why we can see stars in the night sky - we're not really seeing an object that big, we're seeing our eye's response to it. In reality, the star is a lot smaller at this distance.

 

So how does this apply to these objects? Well, as I mentioned, the notching appears and disappears as the object traverses the scene. But different objects show the same notching in the same place on their circumference at the same position on the field of view. So? Well, this means that the notching is an artefact of the lens, and that the objects you're seeing are really point spread functions - smeared out light reflected by the objects themselves. The actual object size is much smaller. The larger objects are probably just reflecting more light.

 

Could the objects still be behind the tether, and still be point-spread-function'd? Yes, but they would have to be reflecting a tremendous amount of light. So much that they would be visible on the ground, even in daylight.

 

Do you know how CCDs work? Do you understand the concept of overexposure in CCD pixels? What happens if a dim object passes in front of a bright object that has reached a CCD pixel's maximum response? What does that look like in motion?

 

no .. would you without googling it..?? .. theres plenty of optical specialist who have come to the conclusion that they are solid objects passing behind the tether and in 2 hour long vids demonstrate exactly whats going on .. their qualifications outstrip any manx forums users and i will take their unbiased opinions over your biased one ta.

 

Actually my thesis was concerned with observations of galactic black holes using the CCD sensors on an IR satellite. I can send you a link if you want to review my credentials?

 

In the observations I made, the black hole accretion disk frequently overexposed the pixels of the CCD, and in many images, a foreground, galactic star overlapped the black hole emission. This caused exactly the same effect as you're seeing here - the star appears behind the black hole, since the black hole emission doesn't increase. As I'm sure you can imagine, this is tricky to deal with.

 

If the objects are passing behind the tether (at 80 miles range) what does this imply about the size of the objects? You can make an educated guess based on geometry. What does this size imply? Should the objects have been visible anywhere else?

 

using the tether as a rule makes some of them in excess of a mile in diameter.

 

Bingo! Do you know how big a mile diameter object would appear from the surface of the earth? I'll give you a hint - probably about the same apparent size as the moon.

 

Now, I remember the STS-75 mission. I remember that it was fairly closely tracked by astronomers on the planet. I never remember anyone mentioning anything about a moon sized object near to it. Let alone thousands of moon sized objects. I think that might have made the news.

 

Do you know what happens to waste water on the space shuttle? Do you know whether there was a waste flush before this film? What do you think happens to the waste water when it is flushed? What would the results of a flush look like in these conditions?

 

no do you know whether one of them had a shit and flushed prior to the shuttle losing the tether..??

 

Ho ho. It's not quite that simple. But it's not far off. See, the shuttle jettisons waste water a number of times during a mission. This is why you get the cloud of ice following the shuttle that they mention. It's nothing sinister, its just that objects in orbit tend to stay in orbit, at least in the short term. Nothing much to slow them down see?

 

start the vid at 2mins 52 secs and witch the light source that enters at pace bottom right of frame watch it violently swerve around a stationary ice crystal 4/5 seconds later .. pause the vid at the exact moment that it happens .. replay it and watch any other objects in close proximity on screen none not any deviate from there trajectories not one .. was it only them pixels that were playing a trick.

no-one can deny it makes a manouver that is quite extrordinary.

 

No, I don't see that. I see the camera being moved and repositioned?

 

stop/start the vid at around 3mins 50secs and tell me why that object is clearly being divided by the tether on top of it as the camera sees it

 

Yes, this is the CCD overexposure we've told you about.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah right in other words a look at me post .. short on content and superficial .. like you really.

 

No, it was a light hearted observation that you didn't get. That's cool, it wasn't directed at you and there's so much other stuff in this thread you don't get so I can hardly expect you to stop frothing at the mouth to worry yourself about it. Perhaps if you weren't so heavily entrenched in youtube conspiracy drama, you'd stop to realise what a poorly educated, boorish, belligerent and deeply misguided little man you are.

 

 

aye .. i would piss on you if i had my Y fronts on the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks dave for keeping it real.

 

i will look at your other statements in a min..

 

QUOTE

start the vid at 2mins 52 secs and witch the light source that enters at pace bottom right of frame watch it violently swerve around a stationary ice crystal 4/5 seconds later .. pause the vid at the exact moment that it happens .. replay it and watch any other objects in close proximity on screen none not any deviate from there trajectories not one .. was it only them pixels that were playing a trick.

no-one can deny it makes a manouver that is quite extrordinary.

 

No, I don't see that. I see the camera being moved and repositioned?

you see the camera being repositioned..? and i see only that light source making/deviating for a split second and then resuming its original track ..

 

do you see it swerve violently as the camera moves if not your looking at the wrong light source..?? and conveniently forgetting the ice crystal it swerves around illusion or not has come to a complete halt after travelling to that position .. how does an ice crystal travel into frame and then stop dead please..??

 

your own explanation says they cannot stop once in motion theres nothing to stop them in space.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...