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

reply to post by RFBurns


No, I am not looking for any kind of award, and frankly I don't like the way you are speaking to me. I tried to be polite to you, and expect you to be mature enough to return the favour.

Now, to the topic. Let me remind you what YOU wrote:

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.

Do you really not understand that what you stated simply wasn't true?
And do you really not understand that snide remarks to me isn't going to make the simple facts go away?

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by RFBurns

 

No, I am not looking for any kind of award, and frankly I don't like the way you are speaking to me. I tried to be polite to you, and expect you to be mature enough to return the favour.

Now, to the topic. Let me remind you what YOU wrote:

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.

Do you really not understand that what you stated simply wasn't true?
And do you really not understand that snide remarks to me isn't going to make the simple facts go away?

Ok lets nail this down since you want to focus on me and me only.

Are there ANY other references IN THIS THREAD, before I made that post to this 2006 referenced lens theory of yours????

NO, there isnt.

BTW, I am being polite and at the same time, quite serious. If I was being anything else, my posts would be deleted and nice warnings would be in their place.

Ok so now that is out of the way, can the dog pile attempt on RFBurns end here and now, or do we continue to derail and make a mockery of this thread?

There are plenty of other members within this thread alone, as well as the other linked threads, that clearly believe these objects are something other than ice, dust, reflections, and this lens stuff. So unless you and the others plan to single out everyone else too..I suggest that we DO get back on topic...yes?



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-2-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


He, he, nice try, but the fact remains. Your claim that the theory had ONLY been brought up here at ATS, is still not true.

And to the topic itself, I have tried to find out excactly what sort of lens the video camera which filmed the "donuts" had, but I haven't succeded.

I hope someone else who is smarter and know more about cameras and photograpfy than me will do an effort to locate this information. It seems like the discussion won't go any further until we know more about the lens.

One question...


We have seen 'image artefacts' created when we look at Venus

IF there was a bright glowing UFO or plasma creature at a distance of 85 nautical miles would we not see the same effect when zoomed?



Silly Lemmings

Originally posted by zorgon
One question...


We have seen 'image artefacts' created when we look at Venus

IF there was a bright glowing UFO or plasma creature at a distance of 85 nautical miles would we not see the same effect when zoomed?

It depends. The effect is caused by using digital zoom, not optical zoom. Digital zoom is the bane of photography, utterly useless (except for producing UFO's).

reply to post by ziggystar60



Still doesnt negate the fact that its recent on ATS, which was and still is my point. Just in case you forgot, the mission launched in 96, the live video was seen that day of the tether experiment, breaking away, then these objects are seen, then suddenly NASA flight control and after that...the only live video we see out of NASA and any shuttle flight since is the launch and landing.

Guess they dont want us to know about that lens problem when we spend billions of our tax dollars on them eh?

Again, lets see a UV example of this lens theory. If it is that much of a common place in lenses, then it should not be that difficult to create the same object pulsating and morphing.

Funny...all the attempts so far have fallen quite short. Wonder why.

Keep trying tho..sooner or later the elaborate efforts "might" pay off.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Phage

It depends. The effect is caused by using digital zoom, not optical zoom. Digital zoom is the bane of photography, utterly useless (except for producing UFO's).

What about a combination of the two? IE both digital and optic zoom. Again what would cause the pulsing from center to outer edge at various rates across the objects and the morphing of the notch, which is not consistant, some have two notches, some have one, some are square shaped and others are triangle shaped.


..ps..welcome back.

..wonder where those others are at the moment? hmm.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-2-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


Digital zoom is just a resize of the image taken with the optical zoom (if any), so a combination of both affects the image in the same way as just a digital zoom.

About the "pulsating" of some of the objects on the video, I made three slow motion videos of three of those objects, to try to see if they really pulsate, and from those three two look like they just get dimmer and brighter. I have some doubts about the third, if it really just gets dimmer and brighter or if it really "pulsates", getting brighter first at the centre and then to the exterior.

Object 1 (slowed down to 1 frame per second)


Object 2 (slowed down to 1 frame per second)


Object 3 (slowed down to 2.5 frame per second)

The out of focus effect also appears with the optical zoom.

reply to post by ArMaP


What frame rate is the source video for those slow motion samples btw?

They look like a couple of frames are missing between each displayed frame.

If your using each frame from the source video, we should be seeing the center to outer edge pulse line (black) make its way through the object.

The picture you got there is close, but not exactly what we see in the sts video. No center hole or..and this is important that I dont think anyone has really made note of it, most of the objects in the sts video are not a perfect circle. They are somewhat of a bloated oval shape. The picture you posted shows perfect circle shapes.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Sorry, in tha last days i didn't have time to follow the discussion here...

Some things to know:

here were people who said that little closer dust/ice particles cannot be seen in space from NASA cameras.
They are wrong. The little particles can be seen. Just some people are superficial.

Look here:


If somebody looks with attention, it can see some particles having another direction than the majority. Yet, the ice particles can be seen.



or here:



Interesting how ICE PARTICLES (seen in the moon light) appear to fly in formation. Ring a bell? This is the cloud of debris flying with the shuttle in sincron, same speed about 8 km/sec, same major orbit, because they were generated by the shuttle.
And astronauts clearly refering at them as ice particles. But some brains here will think of them like UFO/critter BS ? (yes, i know disinformation...or superficiality?)


The two clips were taken from STS-75 mission archives, spoken by the astronauts themselves: www.nss.org...



Now, the notches beeing NOT details of the disks seen in NASA video, but just CAMERA EFFECTS, because they are obedient to position in the frame... The believers here are a bit puzzled about this it seems ... Yet, the notches are obedient, like slaves. Plus, laughing about Sereda, where are the two notched Dropa Discs? (Uh?, in his pareidoliased mind?)..this is why he is a con-artist.

Somebody said about not exactly the circular shape of the disks there...

Something more to think:

CAT EYE EFFECT

toothwalker.org...

The defocused points of light, the BOKEH, can be affected by the viggnetting of the lens. And the circles may became truncated, or squashed.

Look this example, you must click the link to open the full image:



or maybe this, from an 5 year old photo taken with a film camera - image is scanned) (i have to remove people from the image ), again, you must click the link to open the full image:





Another experiment of mine, regarding vignetting:



You see, if you understand optics beyond some (superficial) level, you should know that BOKEH tend to be squashed in direction to the center of the frame...


Now look in this extract from STS-75 NASA alleged UFOs:



In fact, not only that those disk has cat-eye obedience, but every one which goes further away from the center of the frame. Another obedience to the shape of the alleged UFOs? Why?


Regarding NASA cameras...

I didn't find the direct links with details about how NASA cameras are...
Yet, I almost can bet they are catadioptric mirror lens.

Because:
- the NASA cameras have senzors which have extended spectrum, not just in visible, but in near UV too. And, glass lens onjectives have a problem: chromatic abberation, which is hard to correct. Instead, a mirror lens will make the same focus to all the wavelenghs, no matter.
- Catadiopotric lens are light, and have short lengh comparing with big multiple glass lens (because corections needed for the lens). Because of this, they can be made using wider apertures, so, they are better for low-light conditions.

And if NASA cameras are catadioptric...they produce just donut-like bokeh...(we like the donuts) images.google.com...







[edit on 15/2/09 by depthoffield]

These things seen up there are ufo orbs. They pulsate in the same manner us those seen down here on Planet Earth. The inner pulsation is exactly the same as what we are seeing across the globe, the same as I filmed using my mobile in Derbyshire for twenty nine minutes, the same as Mrs Rowlands filmed at Bonsall only four miles from my sightings at Parsley Hay! Pulsating ufo orbs.......................Pure and simple!

Originally posted by secretnasaman
On the shuttle Columbia, NASA had installed a special camera just to observe the tether and look for an anomalies the process created. This was called TOP, for tether optical phenomena experiment.

The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held, low light video camera with special filters and exposures, all controlled by a team of scientists on earth sending commands
and viewing live video images. The primary purpose was to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and any interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere.

NASA has all kinds of video cameras on shuttle flights, and in the analogue era, most of the video was put on videotape and not seen by scientists until the shuttle returned to earth. Thus we saw whatever NASA chose to download live along with ground control.

NASA cameras peer into the invisible ultraviolet light spectrum, because that is the spectrum of light where high-energy UFOs should be vibrating, in theory. It is also the spectrum where NASA has said that the observed "SOMETHING" was spotted.

The TOP camera was capable of seeing into the infrared spectrum, the ultraviolet spectrum, the X-ray spectrum and even the gamma ray spectrum! NASA had also asked contractors to retrofit video cameras into "Image Intensified CCD Cameras" that were more sensitive to high frequencies of light.

NASA also used specially manufactured photodiodes which offer sufficient video gain, low background noise, and other numerous applications! These bring the same other qualities as low light CCD cameras, and they span the near ultraviolet, visible and near infrared spectra of light and are sensitive to charged particles and ionizing radiation. (they also detect x-rays and gamma rays)...all compliments of Advanced Photonix in Camarillo, California.

This is amazing evidence that all the NASA video cameras used inside and outside the shuttle were not ordinary camcorders. The images of the tether and satellite we see are truly advanced images peering into the invisible spectrum of light energy.

Trevor James Constable has reprinted a 2009 updated version of his "classic" book,"The Cosmic Pulse Of Light"...and he now includes the tether break - photos and his explanation of the 'camera' and the phenomena. NASA shows us UFOs he says, and he went to a lot of trouble to reprint his book, just to add the STS-75 "tether donuts," as either living organic space "critters",...-fauna- or etheric constructed craft from another dimension!... The Donuts are as seen, but not because of a "notch" !...
(forget the NOTCH-donuts don't have them-just the hole in the middle!)

...but because of the BLACK center, which is seen on NON "notch" Donuts on other NASA video. The black center is the "key" and Constable fully explains, which is way ahead of any current David Sereda like theories (mechanical and not organic) ...and Jose E. (RODS) is going to release all not yet seen NASA video from the Stubbs Archive..and it must be HUGE-.. and- extended and remastered tether footage on his Borderlands TV sight -TBLN- at tbln.com!... so more video to come and I hope it visually disproves all this mumbo-jumbo about "notches"!

The donuts are UFOs! You just can not watch the NASA tether footage and not see this as obvious! Trust your instincts and eyes and not a technical "lens" discussion, which is a red flag!

I'm still waiting for one you "tether" deniers to explain how these "dust particles" move behind the tether.

I 've seen dummies that look like humans, it doesn't mean all humans are dummies.

[edit on 2/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by RFBurns
What frame rate is the source video for those slow motion samples btw?

They look like a couple of frames are missing between each displayed frame.

The original frame rate was 25 frames per second. I used this version because it looks better (maybe less re-encodings) than most of the versions I have seen. I downloaded it using FreeDownloadManager and I converted the frame rate, resized it and took out the sound track using AviDemux.

The picture you got there is close, but not exactly what we see in the sts video.

The picture could only look the same if it was taken with the same type of lens. If you can have access to a Canon camera you can try and see if out of focus light sources look like those on my images.

No center hole or..and this is important that I dont think anyone has really made note of it, most of the objects in the sts video are not a perfect circle. They are somewhat of a bloated oval shape. The picture you posted shows perfect circle shapes.

No, they are not perfect circles, unless they are in the middle (horizontally, from left to right, I don't know why that "squashing" of the shape does not happen vertically, when the objects are at the top or bottom) of the frame.

Another thing is that the shape of the objects is different when the camera is not zoomed in to the maximum, as you can see here.

The object looks like two circular objects side by side, but when the camera zooms in the turns into one of those "donuts".

PS: Only yesterday, when I was already seating in my bed before going to sleep, did I understood why I always thought of this as out of focus bright objects closer to the camera. I had the main light on my room turned off and only a small light near the bed, to my left, when I noticed that I had something (that I saw after that was a very small drop of water) on the right lens of my glasses that was getting the light from the lamp to my left and that was obviously out of focus object (our eyes can not focus that close). I have been so accustomed to see these things in front of me that I did not even thought about why I considered those objects in the STS-75 video out of focus bright objects.

reply to post by JPhish


I am not a tether denier (the tether was really there ), but what I think is that it's a optical illusion, the objects do not pass behind the tether, and if think that all objects, including the tether, have the same colour, how can we say one object is in front of the other?

reply to post by ArMaP


i put "tether" in quotes for for the reason . . .

we can tell the objects move behind the tether from the contrast.

[edit on 2/15/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


OK, could you explain it a little better? I don't understand what you mean by that.

Thanks.

Originally posted by JPhish
we can tell the objects move behind the tether from the contrast.

Originally posted by JPhish
I'm still waiting for one you "tether" deniers to explain how these "dust particles" move behind the tether.

It was explained. Try to not be superficial. It's a illusion. Because a tiny particle of dust/ice, since defocused, produce a transparent airy disc on the senzor/image recorded, and it cannot obstruct the light from distant sources, for example tether, to reach the sensor too.

Look at this and try to use a little your brain:





Also, the "behind the tether" illusion is more "enhanced" because recordings which we see, are plagued by exagerad sharpening of the image.

Sharpening is a common technique used in almost every image technical solution, to compensate blurs of the image due to senzor, anti-alias filters, limited electronics bandwidth for high frequences etc.

More from sharpening, for example here:
www.dpreview.com.../Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Sharpening_01.htm


To ilustrate the principle, I manually apllied a sharpening effect to an image, using Photoshop, here:



original image here:
img301.imageshack.us...
(the only touch here is to insert a perfect gray square with a white line, necessary to next steps)

here is the image with sharpening effect applied:
img180.imageshack.us...
You can see that this sharpened image is much more sharp to the eye, it push the details to see them better




Now, let's recognise together the sharpening applied to the NASA sequences:




or


(look for those donutz too)


or




or





Now, we see that transparent bokeh, together with the technical processing, here is sharpening in the electronics, make the crowd to say
"look, is behind the tether!". Yes..right.. Talking about denying ignorance...








[edit on 15/2/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


I don't think that sharpening is the responsible for those apparent shadows, one of my tests shows the same effect.



This is the lightness channel from my original, where the effect is more clearly visible.