It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Neat pictures.

Too bad NONE of them were infrared or night vision....

Nice try though!

Cheers Friend!




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Well thats a nice dust attempt or is it stars now.

Try again man. When this footage came out years ago, I stood with the best of the best skeptics on the planet and not a singe one of them could validate their explanation other than ice, pannel light reflections, space debris, space junk, and I remember one even went as far as little chunks of the tether breaking away.

None could explain the pulsing rythmic patterns from their centers to the outer edges. None could explain the morphing notches. None could explain the various speeds and directions these objects, and none could explain why over a 15 second period, hords of these objects began to appear into the frame from different directions, at different speeds.

You also ignored my suggestion. Use an IR camera to do your dust test.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Regarding ice particles in space....

Look at the summary of the STS-75 mission, 17 minutes of video explained by the astronauts themselves:

www.nss.org...

Look at 1:09 mark and listen the story of the astronauts. Those are ice debris. You can see that they are isible, they move with different speeds, and a couple of them almost stay fixed ore move down in the frame.

At 3:02 mark when camera panning along that long "arm", you can see a big left and small right DONUTS, very diaphanous, which here are not produced by a closer particle, but by some lens flares inside the lens. At 3:57 mark, multiple donuts, again form internal lens flare. A coincidence beeing donuts? perhaps..or not quite, maybe it has something to do with the internal constructive shape of the lens.

At 13:47, astronauts talks about ice debris iluminated by the moon following the shuttle with the same speed (because it was a product of it)



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

You have a hard time, and low level of knowledge regarding this, so you want us to learn you the basics, to fly in space to film for you those damn particles...


Show us your credentials other than dust video with your finger at the bottom.


Originally posted by depthoffield

How dare those little closer (a few feet or less) particles of water fog iluminated by the powerful blitz and appearing as AIRY DISCS, how dare them to show in the image with the distant buldings too? And if somewhere in the picture was the moon too, how dare them to show themselves with the 400000 kilometres away moon? How dare them?





You use this for your next nonsense proof? Heh. obviously you dont know jack. Those out of focus particles are close to the camera lens, that can be (pun intended)..CLEARLY seen. The objects you call particles in the sts video are NOT close to the camera at all. Anyone with a pre school level education can see those objects are off in the distance.

I will (pun intended) FOCUS on the notches and their movement, dont care if you like it or not.

Your dust bs, your water vapor bs, your finger bs, dont have these notches that are morphing whatsoever. You and a few others seem to keep overlooking the FACT that those objects are IN focus because we CLEARLY see the pulsing and rythmic patterns from their center to outer edge. What you guys also overlook...by accident or on purpose, is that these objects morphing their notch, do NOT occur at the same point in the frame, they occur at different spots within the frame....meaning that if this was some effect of a lens, then every single object would be doing the same morphing at the same point in the frame as the objects pass through the frame.

They dont do that at all friend.


Try again man.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Well your wall of text posts are just as much proof as mine that you don't understood what I ment.

No point to continue, I guess I can't have my question answered.

I am not saying that these are UFO's, critters or freakin floating cheese burgers... In addition to that I am far from convinced that these are airdiscs made entirely from dust a few meters from the camera.

I know about the effect or phenomenon, I just don't believe this is it.

But the STS-75 will prolly always be a mystery.

And since know one take the 180 degree turn of one of the objects, in concideration and just focus on the zoom/unfocusness explanation I'll say that we should leave this as it is. We can only hope that NASA one day explain this ( which I doubt ) to us.

STS-75 have to much info we can't work with, cause frankly....these things can be anything.

The other STS videos are quite more interesting though.
Perhaps we should put down more effort into them.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon


I am not saying that these are UFO's, critters or freakin floating cheese burgers... In addition to that I am far from convinced that these are airdiscs made entirely from dust a few meters from the camera.



I am wating for the next "expert" to claim they are m&m's accidently let loose by one of the shuttle crew as they opened up the bay doors.

I know you didnt state this...but airdiscs....heh..airdiscs in a vacume....hmm that one is probably the best far fetched I have heard to date after all these years.


This is just an opinion but from the begining of this sts75 fiasco years ago, they seemed to me to be more like a space going version of a jellyfish..minus the tentacles. But who knows, they may have tentacles and we just dont see them because they are folded up inside the body of the object.

Anyone remember the first episode of Star Trek TNG? The huge alien life form that could change from pure energy into matter and back again?













Im not saying thats what these objects are in the sts75 video..but what if they are something like that? A life from capable of living in open space based on energy that can change itself, morph itself and is on a level far byond anything we could even possibly comprehend, other than we can see them through a UV camera.

I never dismiss any possibilty..other than the same lame dame excuses put out by the scared debunkers who limit themselves to dust, ice and swamp gas.

Sorry but us thinkers outside the box wont limit ourselves to curling up in a corner to be all cozy comfy thinking that there is nothing but dust and junk and ice particles in space.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 8-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 



"Anyone remember the first episode of Star Trek TNG? The huge alien life form that could change from pure energy into matter and back again?"

Yup.

I was reminded of that episode when I saw the images from the STS-115 mission:




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Indeed! Those are great examples Exuberant1!!


Something else that I have often thought about. These UFO sightings in our atmosphere, perhaps some of them, not all of them, are these space going life forms that can change from a pure energy state to matter. Perhaps that is how they are able, or have been able, to hide and be the cause of the "strange lights in the sky" that people have seen. Those strange lights seen might be when these life forms are changing their states from energy to matter, then appear to be the familiar saucer shape or cigar shape or sphere shapes.

Some have said that Hollywood at times will reflect reality. Even John Glenn made that statement on a Frasier episode, that movies are pretty darned close to the truth. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have given subtile hints to what really is in their movies and tv shows.

I dont think its by accident, but a part of the slow education of the public that began back in the late 50's after the Brookings report. Isnt it also peculiar that the movies and tv shows about space, from about the mid 60's to now, have had a more realistic feel to them than the earlier films prior to the late 50's?

As RCH always says..."What did they know and when did they know it".









Cheers!!!!

[edit on 8-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The people who filmed that have left their camera to auto focus on an object that is very far away. To film objects that far away, regardless of the light spectrum, the lens needs to be at infinity, in those videos it isn't. Which are why they resemble the STS-75 video - they're out of focus, just much further away from the lens.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Well thats a nice dust attempt or is it stars now.

Try again man. When this footage came out years ago, I stood with the best of the best skeptics on the planet and not a singe one of them could validate their explanation other than ice, pannel light reflections, space debris, space junk, and I remember one even went as far as little chunks of the tether breaking away.

None could explain the pulsing rythmic patterns from their centers to the outer edges. None could explain the morphing notches. None could explain the various speeds and directions these objects, and none could explain why over a 15 second period, hords of these objects began to appear into the frame from different directions, at different speeds.



In fact all the effects where fully explaind. Just that you are so blinded, allow me to conclude this based on facts, and you didn't understand them.

You didn't understand that notches position and shape at different orbs here in STS75, depends only by the position in the frame. So it is a camera effect. They are not real object properties. The demontration is right here in this topic, in page 1, right to your nose. Your lack of understanding made you ignorant of this.

You didn't understand that closer (meters or less) little bright particles can be seen on the movie, just like the dust in my room, posted before, just like the fog particles with flash in just above picture, and just like the 1:09 mark in the summary video of STS75 posted just before, showing releasing of ice debris by the shuttle. You are ignorant of this i may conclude.

You didn't understand what airy discs are, and their properties, like transparency, brightness in respect with size of focus error. You didn't understand that maneuver of focusing of NASA camera, posted before, when those donuts airy discs shrinks and became brightenes as focus came closer from infinite. You didnn' understand the depth of field phenomenon. You are ignorant of this I may conclude.

You didn't understand why all the donutz or discs are seen perpendicular of them, and not even one seen from the edge. You assume this failed understanding beeing "we don't know alien technology". No, they are airy discs. You ignore logical explanations and choose whatever you like. And you like UFO's no matter what physical laws breaks your choosing implyies. You don't give a damn of physical laws i may conclude.

You failed to understand what space debris really it is. It can be anything from ice particles, flakes of paint, bit of insulation, any dust-like particles from the shuttle itself whatever. More demanding a shuttle mission activities, or even an accident, more the debris generated. In an above post, i've quoted a definition of debris. You ignored that. You simply dismissed that debris exists. This is proof of ignorance.

You fail to question yourself why those "critters" are seen as floatin in sincron with the shuttle, regarding the shuttle moving with a staggering 8 km/sec, 480 km/minute..like you are saying that moving with an airplane 500 km away from Eiffel towe will not matter in how will appear in the image. On the other hand, debris DO have the same major orbit as the shuttle, and follow it more or less from some time, because they are a shuttle product. You lean to "alien mistery". Ignorance...


Regarding trajectories, it was said before, that curved trajectories are a FACT. It involves a very very little atmospheric drag yet existing, it involves different particles trajectories (eliptic around the earth) with differences accumulated as times goes. This is really balistic trajectories. It is a complex moving situation. It can be explained by specialists. I cannot reproduce this to you, but i undestand this, and it seems you failed to do the same. Anyway, look at this hexagonal
donut:



extracted from the water dump here: www.projectprove.com...


Regarding 15 second of hords atttack... LOL, this is simple. As the shuttle moves (as operators said), it goes out of the shadow of the earth, in sunlight. Then, the little particles until then invisible, because really small, became iluminated by the sun. Ok?




Originally posted by RFBurns
You also ignored my suggestion. Use an IR camera to do your dust test.

I didn' t have a infrared camera. But i have a brains. Infrared light, near UV light, is just LIGHT, and a proof for this it is that camera make images


So, the experiment with infrared light, or near UV light, will be the same.

And i said before (of course ignored), that the NASA cameras are not be senzitive JUST to near UV. They are using the whole spectrum from they are capable. So the images, including airy discs, are made from the whole spectrum available, not just nearUV because someone fool you (Sereda).




[edit on 8/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Whatever keeps your boat afloat and helps keep you feeling safe and cozy comfy friend. Doesnt change my opinion one bit, nor does it many others here in this thread that btw, seriously out number you.

What you fail to understand, throughout this entire thread..is that your examples have been shown before, oh about 9 years ago at another anomaly forum. That was shot down so dramatcially by an imaging expert and photography expert who happens to be a NASA/JPL engineer, one of the guys that builds camera systems for the various probes and rovers.

Google it..its on the Anomalies Network Forum, in their archives, around Sept 2000.

Some cookies and ice cream with that?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


"Indeed! Those are great examples Exuberant1!! "

That particular set of images from STS-115 is the best yet of this particular species of High Altitude Bioforms that were captured by the IR Camera utilized in the Tether mission.
This image was taken in 2003 and is not "out of focus" (;-P:



Then there is the STS-80 video, wherein a distinct circle with a center point is formed:


TWO more Bioforms recorded by the IR camera on STS- 80:


*For those of You feeling Adventurous, Here is a link to an image of TWO UFOs which was taken by MIR during a solar Eclipse...
www.enterprisemission.com...

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
None could explain the pulsing rythmic patterns from their centers to the outer edges. None could explain the morphing notches. None could explain the various speeds and directions these objects, and none could explain why over a 15 second period, hords of these objects began to appear into the frame from different directions, at different speeds.


Exactly!! While I appreciate DOF for going out of his way in explaining away these donuts as 'airy discs' (What the heck is that?!) lens anomalies, out-of-focus ice/dust particles, and so on, he hasn't yet answered the questions as mentioned by you. To summarize:

1. Morphing notches.

2. Change of speed and direction.

3. Objects photographed IN FRONT as well as BEHIND the tether.

4. Sudden appearance of objects from different directions.

5. PULSING objects (Though phage had given his explanation stating that this pulsing is due to rotation of the particles).

And then why has DOF or some others not commented on the UFO formation photographed from the Shuttle (STS-80), earlier shown by Akezzon in his vid at page 5? Here's the screen grab again:


Video grab from STS-80

Intelligent ice/dust particles that have the brains to form a dandy looking circle in space?

Now instead of harping the same tune ad nauseum, he and the others on the flip side of this very interesting debate should find logical explanations for the points brought out above.

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
...
I am not saying that these are UFO's, critters or freakin floating cheese burgers... In addition to that I am far from convinced that these are airdiscs made entirely from dust a few meters from the camera.

I know about the effect or phenomenon, I just don't believe this is it.

But the STS-75 will prolly always be a mystery.
...

They probably aren't cheeseburgers, although I suspect a similar effect could be generated with a telescope by sticking them on fishing line and dangling them around the opening
. It's a big enough lens.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
As the old saying goes, "seeing is believing".
In this picture, which entity would you say is in the foreground at first glance?

If we just consider those two objects in the image and forget the video, what do we have to judge their relative distances?

Nothing.

So, we try to find things that we can recognise as distance markers and with which we are familiar.

The only thing we can see on that image besides the objects is something that looks like a shadow of the tether on the other object, so we may consider the tether in front of the other object.

But if we look at the rest of the image we can see that the "shadow" of the tether is also projected on the background, so we may think of this image as representing a long object and a round object over a background, and both foreground objects appear to cast a shadow on the background.

But we know that this photo has no real background, so the tether and the "donut" can not be casting a shadow on the background, and if they are not casting a shadow on the background (because there is no background) then what we are seeing is just a difference in brightness, every bright object with a sharp edge has a darker rim around the right side of its edge.

Considering this, how can we say that the tether is projecting a shadow on the "donut"? In my opinion, we can not.

So, if we are left without the "shadow", we are also left without anything that can show us which of the objects is closer to the camera, so we have to look for other signs of their relative distances.

This is where the out of focus lights come to mind. I know how an out of focus light looks like, and those things look close enough to what I know are out of focus lights for me to consider that possibility, so that is what I do, I consider that those objects are possibly small bright objects (they need to be small objects to make that effect) closer to the camera than the tether.

As I have said before, there are still some things unexplained, but at least I have not found anything that makes this possibility impossible, so this is the possibility that remains on the top of my list of possibilities.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Take a look at this vid. The same object as the donuts seen in the Tether incident! But this one is shot from the ground in UK...


This "one" is made of at least 6 different videos, so it's not strictly one.


And why do you say this is the same object, why don't you say that this looks the same as the other objects seen in the STS-75 video? It could be just because my knowledge of English is not as good as it should, but by saying it that way it looks like you are not considering other possibilities.


Check out how the object turns from edge-on to broadside-on. Some have contended that these are just lens artifacts as they conform to the lens geometrics.
I think that what you say is the object turning from edge-on to broadside-on is the object getting from behind some thing that was partially blocking it, but I can only test it when the night falls here in Portugal (some 6 hours away).


And oh yes, check out the ubiquitous 'notch' in this object too!
Where is the "notch" in these objects? I did not saw anything like the notch on the STS-75 video.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Have a look at this ice/dust particle photographed from the Shuttle (STS-114):



Wow! Now that's some turn!

So, even a 3rd grader will tell you that in a vacuum, an object will continue moving in the same direction unless acted upon by a force causing it to change its direction and velocity. In this case it is obvious that there is no external force that can cause the object to suddenly change its direction.

Thus if there was no external force, then there must be some force within it to cause it to change direction. Therefore, it's either intelligent and capable of these autonomous manoeuvres or it is the result of a motive force within that's causing it do so. In other words, an intelligently controlled space craft?

Cheers!


[edit on 8-2-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Took a bit but I found the video. The object pulsing effect has a very familiar movement and nature to how the cuddlefish's pulse on their backside.

Not the same thing obviously but just showing an example of the pulsing line effect on the objects in the sts video look alot like the pulsing, moving lines on the cuddlefish.




Interesting isnt it?!!


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 

First, let me say that I commented the STS-80 video posted by Akezzon, but as you apparently did not noticed it (or you were not including me in your "some others" comment), I will say it again, with a small difference.

What is seen in the other videos (STS-80, STS-114, etc.) does not look like the same thing, they look like large bubble-like objects that are attracted by some reason (in one video it looks like they are attracted by storms) to Earth but that are not able to enter it and are "squashed" against the higher layers of the atmosphere.

I have not an explanation for these objects.



In this case it is obvious that there is no external force that can cause the object to suddenly change its direction.
There are several invisible forces (gravity, solar wind, etc.) that could be affecting that unknown object, so we can not say for sure that there is no external force affecting it.


Thus if there was no external force, then there must be some force within it to cause it to change direction. Therefore, it's either intelligent and capable of these autonomous manoeuvres or it is the result of a motive force within that's causing it do so. In other words, an intelligently controlled space craft?
If you throw a stone into the air and someone films it going up and then down it may look like the stone is acting on its own and intelligently controlled, but that is not the case (specially if you throw the stone in a way that makes it fall on your head
).

Now, I am not saying that gravity pulled that object back to the right of the screen, what I am trying to say is that some external force can be acting on it but we are not able to see it, so we can only see its effect on the object.

But it can also be a self controlled object.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh


"Exactly!! While I appreciate DOF for going out of his way in explaining away these donuts as 'airy discs' (What the heck is that?!) lens anomalies, out-of-focus ice/dust particles, and so on, he hasn't yet answered the questions as mentioned by you. To summarize:"

"1. Morphing notches. " ANSWERED BEFORE. A couple of times in this topic. You didn't read it?

Ok, repeat again my self, for you or others which can't read:


.. the notches here are consistent with the position in the frame. This demonstrates the relationship between the shape of the orbs and their position in the frame.


Look here, a zone in the frame named "A", with yellow border. In this zone, different disks have the same notches, two notches in the upper part of the disk. Look different objects numbered as 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.



seconds later:


a second later:


again, seconds later:


another seconds later:


seconds later again:










Again, same closer look, but here we concentrate in another zone, called "B", with green border. The objects which are obedient here, are numbered as 9,4,10,7,11. Now, they have just one notch, in their below part.




seconds later:


seconds later:


again seconds later:










Now, let's study another zone, called "C", with blue border. The objects are 6 and 11 in this zone, and have one notch down and one notch up:




seconds later:



Should I continue? No! stop wasting time!


It is clear that the shape (notches) of different alleged "UFO's" are obedient to their position in the frame. It really looks like the NASA camera is the master of alien ships, ordering them to change the shape accordingly!





========

"2. Change of speed and direction." I was answered, just in my previous posts or in another topics at well. Of course, this is much hard to replicate, but, it involves orbital balistics, tiny diferentes of vectors of motion of every particle and the shuttle. It is not simple, and for someone who didn't understand basics in optics like depth of field, image artifacts etc, it is much harder. Not my guilt.



"3. Objects photographed IN FRONT as well as BEHIND the tether." Partilally was explained. It is an illusion on the one hand, and on the other hand, yet to be explained to me (as not having enough time to resist to the flooding of posts) it is image recording artifacts (blooming, exagerated sharpening artifacts etc)

"4. Sudden appearance of objects from different directions." Yes easy: Particles, close to the shuttle, going from the shadow of the shuttle into the sunlight (just as in my dust experiment in my room:




"5. PULSING objects (Though phage had given his explanation stating that this pulsing is due to rotation of the particles)."
Explained from me also:


Originally posted by depthoffield

Pulsing effect...

Particles of debris are perfect spheres or irregulate?
Answer: usually irregulate

Particles of debris rotate themselves or not?
Answer: many can rotate around their own axis (tumbling)

How is the rotation?
Answer: inertial, so it is regular.

Particles of debris reflect the sun light?
Answer: yes

If they are iregulate, rotates themselver regular, and reflect the light, how their brightness changes?
Answer: Brightness changes regular, because the surface reflecting light changes with rotation. In fact, the period of rotation can be easy measured from brightnes variations.


So, the regularity of their changing brightness is a FACT.


Ok, we have Airy discs, and we have regular variations in brightness. More, because the surface of the little debris particle changes periodically and regular, so the Airy disc changes regular its structure, because Airy disc is just a sum of interference and difraction of light waves passing through the lens (en.wikipedia.org...)
That's why Airy discs regularly pulsates...because the source of light varies regurlarly in brightness, size and initial phase of rays of light.

Now about spiral effect ....

What we see in is a recording from a TV or LCD screen... so the image seen is not only the airy disc, but the rows and columns of pixels too:



When the airy disc is moving along that matrix of pixels, it appears a phenomenon called MOIRE . (en.wikipedia.org...)

For an example of changing moire patterns look here: www.mathematik.com...




"And then why has DOF or some others not commented on the UFO formation photographed from the Shuttle (STS-80), earlier shown by Akezzon in his vid at page 5? "

Maybe because i have no time to respond to all of you? And allready i was accused that I post "wall of posts". If i try to explain in detail something if asked or necessary, somebody says about "posting walls of text". If not, i was asked for more explanations. What to choose? You really want to flood me?




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join