It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by depthoffield

So now you want to claim its the pixels in the LCD monitor that is causing the spiral pulsing rythmic pattern?

Oh man and I thought your finger dust airdisk was far fetched!! You just keep reaching more and more out there into the "airdisk" for more explanations as this goes on dont you!!!

BTW, the pulsing effect and the spiral effect can be clearly seen in other parts of the video that are not from a captured monitor screen.

Bad..bad claim there DOF.

The morphing. Why would these morphs not change as the objects move within the frame? Why are they consistant for a time, then change in a totally different area of the frame?

If it was a lens impurity causing this to happen, as the object moves across the frame, that morph would change instantly as the object moves out of the impurity point.

Also where is the impurity along the tether? No one has answered that one yet.

Because they cant!!!



[edit on 8-2-2009 by RFBurns]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by depthoffield
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!

You're so right. I pointed out here in a thread about STS-75 last year that parallax measure alone when the camera is a little bit shaken vertically is enough to prove that these are out of focus particles close to the camera.

Reposted: I extracted a few frames at 3 min 40 s from the 06 min 27 s YouTube video with VLC player. The floater is moving horizontally at this point, while camera shake is vertical.

If the floaters were several miles away, behind the thether, there would be no measurable parallax.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:00 AM
As the old saying goes, "seeing is believing".
In this picture, which entity would you say is in the foreground at first glance?

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


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.

Who said anything about a shadow? Not me. I never claimed such a thing. I merely said that one looks to be in front of the other. Nothing about distance, nothing about "shadows". Just an observation that you choose to overlook and replace with your own words. It's a rather simple question.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by lernmore]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:02 AM
I would just give up depthoffield, it appears no amount of critical thinking will rub off on those who choose to see things in absolutes. I would love to see the field of ufology gain a high degree of credibility. This will not happen until the community of ufo enthusiast can agree when a reasonable explanation(though possibly wrong) is given as to how the phenomenon can otherwise be explained.

I can see how the detailed explanation provided by depthoffield it sufficient enough to accept it as a highly possible, if not highly probable, account for the tether occurance.

We can't moan and groan about the infamous diehard debunkers who are so blinded by their own arrogance that they dismiss out of hand every case presented to them if we don't hold ourselves to the same degree of unbiased critical analysis.

As I've said before I believe the objects filmed could indeed be extraterrestrial, but it seems their appearance is oddly similar to artifacts created by distortion due to the camera focusing.

When someone puts forth a logical explanation for one peice of footage it doesn't make them a staunch debunker, just a critical thinker. I'm not an expert in any field just a casual armchair observer, so take it or leave it.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:40 AM
Made a quick one here so the movement of the "airy discs" are easier shown.

And yes DOF, just stop it. There is no use..blah blah.


DOF, have all right to say his thing and explain what he thinks it is etc.
Why I argue with him is because he want us to accept that his explanation is the ultimate right one. And I mean, that none of us can come up with a 100% accurate explanation.
Therefor I stand by my beliefs, if that makes DOF upset, well then that is up to him then. I respect his belief.

If he want it to be "airy discs" then it is "airy discs" for him. No one will ever be able to change that, just as little as thos who believe otherwise never will change their point of view.

And tbh, I don't care about all the different explanations and which one is right. I like to speculate instead and try imagine other things instead of trying to find an explanation that fits into our daily life.

Both sides ( The gullible believers, as debunkers call them vs Disinformation agents, debunkers, as they being called sometimes ) will always have new explanations that outsmarts the other sides explanation, only to have that explanation outsmarted by yet another one.

It will continue like that forever.

Anyway, I've just uploaded this too youtube and here you can see that several of these "dots" make quite some turns. One in the lower right corner seem to be drunk driving even.


Just because something is logical doesn't automatically make it valid.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Akezzon]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Akezzon]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by lernmore
Who said anything about a shadow? Not me. I never claimed such a thing. I merely said that one looks to be in front of the other. Nothing about distance, nothing about "shadows".
I did not said that you were talking about shadows, what made you think that?

Maybe my answer was not well written, it's not the first time, but my answer was only about what I think, and that because you asked me.

So, answering your question "In this picture, which entity would you say is in the foreground at first glance?", the entity that looks to be in the foreground is the roundish entity, but that (and this is why I talked about shadows) is only because of that shadow-like "line" that follows the right edge of the objects (in the same way buttons on a Windows or Macintosh program have slightly darker lines on the bottom and right edges, to give us the idea of a 3D environment), and I also saw that in that first glance.

And if I see that then I should use that information so I can have a better idea of what I am looking at, I should try to avoid being affected by an optic illusion, so I use what I know about objects that look like that round object to try to get some idea of which object is in the foreground, but as I said in my previous post, there is nothing that shows which one is on the foreground and which is on the background.

Just an observation that you choose to overlook and replace with your own words. It's a rather simple question.
I hope I have answered your question now.

If sometimes I look like I am avoiding an answer or ignoring what you (or anyone else) say you may be sure that I am not, it's just my knowledge of English that makes me make these mistakes from time to time, I have no problem answering questions (but I also would like to get some answers

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by Akezzon

I can and will.

What you see is a bunch of UFOs.

The end.


posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
AHHH!!! what is weird to me about all of this, i have been videotaping "spirit" orbs (with a sony nightshot kind of modded the camera to just shoot in infrared only) ,or so i thought were spirit orbs. but one in particular i have been catching is the same shape as the ufo with the triangle cut out on top and a star pattern cut out in the middle, i also believe its a legit "orb" or whatever because it also pulsates (emitting its own light). im just wondering if these orbs/et's whatever are checking us out down here. i dont have any video uploaded yet (i just got the camera and its a Hi8 recorder) but when i do i'll show you the correlation. thanks for the interesting posts guys and gals

Ziggy wow what a thought maybe the spirit orbs we catch with our cameras are our souls (instead of ghosts or entities) that haven't yet found their way to the other side and maybe the same shape ufo orb's are the souls that have crossed over maybe that's where we go ... we float in space (heaven) ???


edited to add in certain facts*

[edit on 5-2-2009 by ziggyproductions05]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:42 PM
ok no one answered me before - so i'll say it again - if it is dust particles, space particles, whatever - how do they go below the teather????? i would like a logical explanation, please not smart remarks (if thats possible here).

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by starlitestarbrite

that is also a possibility - i think these orbs are souls or possible ET surveillance as well. Who knows what are souls do when they leave, but im sure we could travel to space - im sure we wouldnt have to breath!! lol - but there are a lot of connections im getting with "spirit orbs" and UFO's - especially the OVNI's in Mexico and what not. For those who dont konw, they look like the orbs we capture on digital photos but are huge, up in the sky, and pulsating.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by Akezzon

Good video. It made me review the whole tether scene again, and one thing that struck me is that you see the objects only making turns downwards, often more than one at a time simultaneously, or sometimes one after another. While others still remain on their original trajectory, i've not find one object that is flying downwards and then upwards, or from left to right and then back to the left.

To me, as unsatisfying as it is, this points to a) some change in the flight path of the shuttle or b) a gravitational pull or force of some kind acting upon them, maybe from the thrusters.

If you watch the tether closely, then you'll see that it's moving in relation to the star next to it from the left to right in a almost straight line, so there's no sign of a change of the shuttles flight path visible, but this could be due to the much greater distance.

I just liked to mention this, because this is some major flaw, which makes me doubt the space ship theory again a little more.

It would be nice, if someone could find an object doing the opposite of the other ones. This would refute the contradiction i see here. So far, i wasn't able to find one.

Take care!

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
ok no one answered me before - so i'll say it again - if it is dust particles, space particles, whatever - how do they go below the teather????? i would like a logical explanation, please not smart remarks (if thats possible here).

It was answered several times during this discussion. It's probably caused by an optical illusion due to the distance between the tether, the objects and the shuttle.

I've seen pretty convincing, homemade experiments, which have reproduced this effect with a ruler and a cd, for example. But unfortunatly the user has deleted the video, so i can't link you to it anymore.

What's still questionable is the scene where one object passes behind and the other one in front of the tether. But in this case i also think it's hard to tell since the tether is only a few centimeters, if not millimeters in diameter, and just appears enhanced due to the eletrical charge caused by the ionosphere combined with the ccd-camera.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by hackbart]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:32 PM
I'd like you to have a look this video, so you get an idea of how debris or ice in space do look like. They're pretty similar to the objects seen in the sts 75 footage. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same.

By the way, this is how particles from one source should behave in space. They do not cross each others trajectory, and move all from the center of the source away. Others than the objects in the sts 75 footage, which seem to come into view from almost everywhere, and from many different sources.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by hackbart]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by hackbart

i'll reply to this post, and the one above, i dont believe this optical illusion stuff at all, optical illusions are perfomed by Criss Angel
. The teather is twelve miles long! and as far as your footage you showed in the video - it compares in now way whatsoever to the teather video. yes it shows some space debris, space ice, whatever - but it does not show anything going from one side of the video, behind the object, and coming out the other side. it also is a lot closer. The "UFO's" in the teather video are clearly going underneath it, popping out of nowhere, and seem to be intelligent. none of which is shown in your example video. If i may ask, what is your stance on UFOs, or better yet, aliens, do you think they are real? you dont have to answer if you dont want to. This is just how i feel, and based on my studies of similar objects here on earth, well my balcony and apartment

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by mithrawept

Some people will continue to believe in nonsense even after compelling evidence to the contrary, they are not ufos.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by ziggyproductions05

First off, i do believe that intelligent beeings on other planets exist. This is very likely to me. I also assume that there's is way to cover great distances in space way faster than the speed of light, even if our current state of knowledge refutes this. Furthermore, to me the're too many storys and myths about beeings from other solar systems from different parts of the earth throughout human history and yet in our present time to be just coincidences. If you ask me, it's very unlikely just some kind of collective hallucination or misinterpreted weather phenomena. All the ufo reports and abductions reported by civilians, all the military reports and cover ups, all the high ranking officials, pilots, and even presidents who have admited that beeings from other planets have visited earth can't be easily dismissed or just be declared as coincidences. The probability tends to 0 for this to be possible.

Now to answer your question: Yes, i assume that it's true, and i do believe in an extraterrestrial presence here on earth.

BUT you still have to keep your mind open to the facts, and not assume that everything not explainable or strange is of extraterrestrial nature. Sometimes it feels depressing to see the truth, and to realise that it's maybe just a natural phenomenon and not alien space crafts, i know this. Yet, i'm here to find out the truth. And if the facts tell us that these objects are very likely debris, then i have to accept this. There's still plenty of other questionable nasa footage, which hasn't been explained, yet. Like the sts 80 formation, or the sts 37 orb, for example.

Maybe we should move on to them.

However, i'm trying to contact the person who reproduced the effect of the objects passing behind the tether and add it to the discussion later. And i'll try to recreate the scene in 3ds max to see, if it is really possible that the objects make such turns just by changing the shuttles altitude. It shouldn't be too much of an effort.

Take care!

[edit on 8-2-2009 by hackbart]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:23 PM
right on man - i really liked that post - just as much as we must use discretion it could be space debris, we must do the same being it alien space craft. i agree with you on a lot of stuff you said, and i believe that some of that stuff in the teather video was debris, but there were alien craft. i think you and i should talk more often, and i hope to soon post my "ufo/orb/spirit" footage and maybe that will sway you in some way. U2U me sometime so we can talk. thanks for the interesting and not hate filled post, this should prove an example of how people should express their opinion. take care my friend and best of luck to you!

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:04 AM

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

there is compelling evidence in both directions, you must have only looked at one angle...

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by ziggyproductions05

As I said before, there is really nothing to show that the "UFOs" pass behind the tether, we have no references to judge that.

If it was a known object we could use its size, but an unknown object of unknown size does not give us any real data to know if the object is closer to the camera than the tether or not.

As nobody answered my previous question, can we make a trade and you answer my question?

Why do you think the "UFOs" pass behind the tether?


new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in