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

Originally posted by RFBurns
The debate has been ongoing for 14 pages because of this new, ONLY on ATS, theory about a lens impurity being the cause for what is seen in the sts video.

This is not true. Here is a comment posted by "MarcusT" in David Sereda's blog in 2006:

David, I have just watched your interview/documentary with Dan Akroyd and on the whole it's generally very good, unlike other documentaries who destroy their credibility by being overly sensational, your film comes across as pretty credible. I need no convincing about the subject matter anyway, I already agree with most of what was said by those that appeared in the film.

HOWEVER, to my horror you included footage of the NASA "dropa stones" which have been thoroughly debunked! In a nutshell, it's the "diamond UFOs" thing all over again - the "UFOs" are bokeh (out of focus visual artifacts) caused by the "catadioptric" lens (also known as a "mirror lens") which is used in astronomy to achieve huge magnifications and collect a lot of light. The UV camera used by NASA had such a lens, and the donut shapes observed in the footage are a direct product of the use of this lens.

Scroll down to near bottom of page to read the rest of the comment:
davidsereda.blogspot.com...

[edit on 12/2/09 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by SaviorComplex
Plasma types? Well the British MOD went on air (BBC) in June 2006 to admit on a Monday morning that plasma vehicles exist up there. It was THE headline news (for one hour) on a Monday morning. Never heard much from them since but they DID admit plasma entities (ufo orbs) exist!

I see that most people are saying that the lens effect is from faults or impurities, but as far as I understand it, it is not, it's something that happens to all lens, regardless of purity or perfection, when they reach (or are close to) their limit.

Now, here is a test that I made to see if a rotating object reflecting a light could look something like the so called "pulsating effect" of the objects on the STS-75 video.

The result was not that good, I think I should have used a less flat object (I used a piece of tin-foil ) and definitely a tripod.



Edit: I forgot to say that the piece of tin-foil was rotating very slowly, I must find a better way of making this test.

[edit on 12/2/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


Nice try..but... not enough real good results.

The dificulty here is because of this:
a) the particle should be very small, but very bright. (Yours is bright enough, but it is not very small)
Only when it is very small, difraction and interference patterns appear, like this orbs here, taken from dragonfly pictures posted a couple of times:


b) rotating constantly that irregulate small particle



In my movie posted before, but i'll put it again (despite RFBurns don't understanding it):


(a side note here: there is "blinking" dust here..look afor example at 1:05 mark)

Here my particles are small enough, but the background is much too bright..i should repeat the experiment with the same setup, dust floating in the air, lit by the sun, but with full dark background to let the camera automatic senzitivity (gain) to go to maximum (this is what NASA camera does in that circumstance). So i have to obtain some bokeh orbs looking like in the dragonfly picture, sharp, clear, bright and detailed, but in motion too. And this, in my opinion, will show the pulsing effect of the bokeh orb, because iregulate dust particle tumbling. This was in my mind, but no time in real life to do this with perfect setup.

And, anybody can confirm that NASA cameras are using catadioptric mirror lens? Because that will be undeniable proof for donut-like bokeh. (but some ordinary lens can make donut-like bokeh too, like in dragonfly picture)

How catadioptric mirror lens is made: en.wikipedia.org...
Example for donut bokeh: images.google.com...




[edit on 12/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 12/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
I'm not certain what's being said by depthoffield. Are you saying, it's small debri, or defects in the lens of the camera? Break it down to me, as your theory is very interesting indeed and I'm not too well versed in camera lingo.

Look above, the dust experiment. You can see that even the dust is just little small partciles (you can try too in your room), yet when i zoom (like NASa camera does), they appear big more or less transparent orbs. And remember, they are just tiny particles of dust 1 meter away from camera, and are visible despite people here saying that dust can't be visible. Not donuts, like in NASA movie, because, my lens do not make donutz bokeh, and without notches too (but as you see, the notches in NASA video have nothing to do with actual shape of the alleged UFOs, but is just a camera effect)

And, i have to say again, (and RFBurns, deny your ignorance with this aspect, because you said again and again about lens defects), the bokeh effect (out of focus, limited depth of field terms too) IT IS NOT A LENS DEFECT.
It is just how optics works.
here is a good tutorial: snodart.com... the full version 20 minutes
you can see a drawing about how a point of light, when out of the depth of field, became a circle on the film/senzor, thus bokeh

[edit on 12/2/09 by depthoffield]

Well, regarding the pulsating effect.

What bothers me is, that IF it were to be entirely an out of focus lens anomaly the "motion" of the pulsating light wouldn't be visual.

It would look like your test there, but with different freq depending on how fast it spins/rotates.

In an out of focus object you can't see the "source" of light and where on the object it is emitting from, atleast not as clear as this.

On out of focus objects the whole thing flashes
Viewing the STS-75 video we can clearly see that it comes from the center going out.

If it would be tumbling in space I would imagine it be flashing as a whole when it is out of focus, otherwise I believe we would see the light come and go from one side to another.

But in this movie it look like this.

This is slowed down ofc.



If it is a tumbling debri or ice particle I doubt it would look and pulse like this.

But hey, that's just me doubting...

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Akezzon]

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
the supposition these are aliens is built on the solid evidence of...nothing.

The supposition was not simply alien craft, the supposition was to suggest that the objects in question are not something of a norm in our daily lives.

evidence?.. we have all looked at the evidence of skeptics, and we are skeptical, but you refuse to even acknowledge the evidence which opened up this thread in the first place. Please see OP;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You're right, no one here believes these are alien craft, plasma entities, or what-have-you.

or what-have-you? .. so any explanation outside of our daily norm is immediately rejected in your book? .. I would be so interested in knowing why anyone should blindly listen to you SaviorComplex.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
tell me how you or anyone else desperately clinging to this as evidence of alien life,

The only tone of desperation here, is coming from you alone. Nobody is clinging to anything, except of course.. skeptics wanting to conclude and close the thread very early on.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Besides, you have no idea how quickly I came to any conclusion about anything.

Yes I do, as evident from your very first post here, your attitude and self-professed conclusion have already been established long before you even took a look at this thread. And this is your attitude in every UFO thread. Frankly, I fail to see why you attempt to contribute to a topic you apparently have the least bit of interest for, in addition to you disliking anyone who believes that some ufos represent alien craft. Your tone is far too disrespectful SC.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
you are twisting my words, something that you frequently do.

Well if I am, I learned from the best.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
We are still waiting on evidence that these are plasma-entities

First of all.. it's not WE, it's just YOU.

Amazing how you choose to ignore any info I pass on to you. Did I not explicitly tell you earlier to google "Plasma Life Forms" .. Did you even try to do a search?

[edit on 13/2/09 by Majorion]

For those couple of guys who insist that these donuts are nothing but lens artifacts/aperture, here's something that doesn't fit into that template:





The above photos show the progression of the craft as it suddenly appears in the camera and turns moving closer to the video recorder. Note that at a distance the craft takes on a delta shape and as it banks it exposes its bottom. Some skeptics claim that this simply shows the shape of the video camera's aperture. As the craft approaches the camera the bottom of the craft comes into focus and looks strikingly similar to STS videos of unidentified objects in space. What are the purposes of the notches in the craft: top and bottom? Why does it have the octagonal area in its center?
Courtesy: UFO Digest

Nuff said!

Cheers!

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
Interesting what you say on these life forms. I call them ufo orbs. I feel the same as you in that they are kind of organic. You note that they have an inner pulse/heartbeat, yes sometimes it's like a rotating gyroscope to look at.

Not 'organic' Plasma Life Forms

Google it Results 1 - 10 of about 9,400,000 for Plasma Life Forms.

reply to post by mikesingh


Hi, Mike, can you tell us where you found these photos? I would like to know more about them.

Thanks in advance. And have a Happy Valentine's Day!

reply to post by ziggystar60


Probably here.

The video itself would be better.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thank you, ArMaP, as always you are very helpful. Happy Valentine's Day to you too!


And I agree it would be better to have the video to confirm that the object really "was brilliant and as it came into view it turned and performed a yaw axis", and that it was "delta-shaped", like the article says.

But it seems we would have to pay to get to see the video:

By the way, the lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous would like to sell his video to any television network or company willing to make him a lucrative offer. Contact the author if you are interested in purchasing the video.

www.ufodigest.com...

Anyone interested..?

reply to post by zorgon
The British MOD admitted to these things in the sky June 2006. It was THE main headline on BBC on a Monday morning! They are very real and they can be seen all over the planet and in the sky. They are what NASA films on a regular basis.

reply to post by ufoorbhunter


How did they admitted it? From what I have seen, what some people consider admission other people consider obfuscation.

reply to post by ArMaP
How did the MOD admit to it? They did it through the BBC (a government propaganda TV channel here in the UK) and it was THE main news on a Monday morning in very early June 2006. I remember it so well as it was only a day or two after I'd filmed the ufo orbs (like those in my avatar) and it was just incredible timing! The BBC broadcast it as THE headline news, then nothing at all a few hours later, weird or what? Admit it then forget it, as if nothing had been said. Those people know these things exist, they admitted to it right there in June 2006.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Dont forget that sts75 video is 20 some odd years old. The debate over that began the very day that was seen on NASA TV. All those years no one hinted at a lens being the cause.

2006 is nothing compared to the decade and half before that.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by depthoffield


Oh I understand it just fine, its an attempt at using your same nasty finger video over and over and over again. And over and over again your finger video does not show pulsing objects shot in UV. Just out of focus dust and an out of focus finger from below.

Why dont you show us a UV example of your theory? Maybe then it might have some merit.



...ps dude...Im not the only one who puts your finger video into the file 13 bin.

I just love this feble attempt to gang up on ol RFBurns. I must really erk your chains that badly. Good!!!


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns

Dont forget that sts75 video is 20 some odd years old. The debate over that began the very day that was seen on NASA TV. All those years no one hinted at a lens being the cause.

2006 is nothing compared to the decade and half before that.

With all due respect, one fact still remains: Your claim that the lense theory ONLY had come up here at ATS, simply wasn't true. I have proven that to you.

reply to post by ziggystar60


You looking for a reward or something? Perhaps you didnt quite get my meaning or just interpreted it the wrong way.

Or I could have not written it correctly. But my meaning was that only recently...recently being within a very short period of time, has the lens nonsense been brought up here at ATS.

But thats ok. Even if we take the timeline back to 2006, that still is only 3 years ago.

When did sts 75 occur?

All those years..no suggestion of lens anomaly. Tho there were suggestions that perhaps it was something with the camera itself, the imager device being faulty. That was shot down rather quickly.

Again, if this is due to lens, then we should be seeing this hole in the center, pulse from center to edge effect in all photos and film/video footage.

We have see futile attempts at trying to duplicate this lens issue, to no avail. Close, but not close enough.

Close is not good enough to fully explain away the objects in sts 75.

That event was broadcast live on NASA TV. Now if it was just ice, or just reflection, or just your lens theory, why did NASA TV suddenly switch to the flight control center camera and never switched back to the live feed from the shuttle?

Lets see what excuse is thrown out there with that.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by depthoffield


I must admit you are persistant!

If these are what you say they are then why are they being filmed on other occasions when they are the only thing in the picture?
When they are the sole reason for filming? Filming ice/dust particles or filming nothing for no reason and they just so happen to be in shot?

Filming things that appear from behind the shuttle and can be followed all the way down to the upper atmoshere where it suddenly lights up.

Things that make circular patterns and light up hundreds of miles away from the shuttle.

Things that fly behind the ISS.

The same damn things that are flying behind the tether!

Same shape, form, notched, hole in the middle - all being filmed for a reason!

Because they are what they are - ET!

How do any of your theories explain away these when they quite clearly are not what you say they are?

PS - This is the third thread i have put this to you in & you have yet to respond.

Also i have seen an interview with a former shuttle astronaught who claims these are just debris that follows them around on missions - which lets face it is just use of poetic liscence but even the men that film them dont say its dust or a lens issue.

Your full of it mate.

[edit on 14/2/09 by cropmuncher]