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: 20
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


When you can replicate this from your lens theory....



and your replication does this....(click play)


(click to open player in new window)



...then you will have my attention.



Cheers!!!!




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Perhaps ArMaP has the time to take the images from the 11th to the 31st in the 1024 format size and put them all together into an animation?


Here you have it, first in a smaller format, from the ATS Media Portal

(click to open player in new window)


If you want the 1024x1024, 25MB movie in AVI format, just click here.
It does not play, you have to download it.

Edit:
I forgot to say that this has all the January images.

[edit on 18/2/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP



Thanks a lot ArMaP... much appreciated



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns


There is something else to note about the one you highlighted in your clip above.

If you continue watching that one as it moves off the screen on the right, the camera zooms out and you can see that it has changed direction, now moving down the screen




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes it definately changes direction! Now there is nothing nearby that would make some ice particle or debris or junk change direction. The shuttle is 80 nm away at that point, so no thruster blast caused it, and if it was thruster blast, it would not do a gradual turn, but a radical swift change in direction. This puppy does a nice coordinated gradual turn down when it moves to the right of the frame.

Unless ice or space junk has intelligence, that is no movement made by any ice or junk imo.

Critter...Space Creature...living...concious entity checking out a foriegn object all lit up in its environment and pulsing quite aggresively as it passes by the tether and then calms down a bit as it makes its way to the right then down.

Neat little guys arent they!!



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The GLOWING TETHER



The most famous sustained arc event of all led to the breakage of the TSS-1R electrodynamic tether, and the loss of the attached satellite. The image below shows the burned, frayed and broken tether end still attached to the Shuttle after the break. Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. Noel Sargent (2002) has investigated whether the TSS-1R arc was seen to disrupt Shuttle communications. Although he has found no record of disturbed communications during the event, for most of the time the arc was shielded by metallic structures from the communications antennas, and when the tether broke, the arc was many meters from the receiving antennas. It remains to be seen whether sustained arcs produce radio noise severe enough to be a communications problem.


Source

The camera in question...
Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)



Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin


Source




Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma ( in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.


www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...



The plasma sheath that was EXPECTED is why the tether is glowing and appears as wide as it does




...

[edit on 18-2-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Exactly!! That 1cm width tether had so much plasmic charge on it, it made it look much wider than it actually is.

Flourescent lights and those neon lights are a perfect example. Those small orange neon lights that use two simple leads inside the glass bulb, when power is applied, the orange glow when viewed on a camera makes the two little leads inside the bulb appear to be much larger than they are.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
The Tethers aren't the only things that glow... (and there were more of them
)

Spacecraft glow.



Orbiting vehicles were found to emit optical radiation while travelling through
the atmosphere [1]. During the third Shuttle flight in 1982, images taken by the
astronauts have shown an orange glow over the Shuttle tail and thrusters concentrated
around the areas exposed to the ,orbital wind,. The glow spreads for about
20 cm over the Shuttle surface.


Anyone have a Springerlink account access?


www.springerlink.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Now the next point...

The STS 75 footage was not taken by an ordinary camera... so before we start discussing lens artifacts maybe we should look closely at the camera?

Unfortunately NASA has moved the original page link I had with a description
www.nasa.gov...



During some nighttime orbital passes, crew members worked with the Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP), which gave a stunning view of atmospheric air glow and auroras over the South Pole as viewed from the flight deck's overhead window. This is the window through which the crew later will watch the deployed satellite. TOP science team members viewed live video images and sent voice commands to vary the filters and exposure setting for better viewing. The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere. The TOP has many advantages over similar photographic recordings made on previous flights because it allows real-time observations of the images seen by the orbiter crew.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...


So whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere


In other words its NOT seeing dust and ice particles reflecting light... it is seeing CRITTERS that are electrically charged...

Silly debunkers




....

[edit on 19-2-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


So whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere


In other words its NOT seeing dust and ice particles reflecting light... it is seeing CRITTERS that are electrically charged...

Silly debunkers






BAM!!! Now thats the kind of bomb I like to see go off!!




Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Was saving that for a rainy day




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by zorgon


So whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere

In other words its NOT seeing dust and ice particles reflecting light... it is seeing CRITTERS that are electrically charged...

Silly debunkers



BAM!!! Now thats the kind of bomb I like to see go off!!


Hello. What are you saying are the 'critters'? Are you saying that the 'critters' are charged particles? Are you saying that the 'critters' are attracted to charged particles? Are you saying they feed on charged particles? I'm curious



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Are you familiar with Krilian photography? Every life form generates an aura, an electrical field. Krilian photography can show us this aura.

We are comprised of mostly water and a few chemicals. Remove that and what is left....energy, our soul..our aura..our lifeforce.

These critters are in their natural state, an energy form.

It would be logical for an energy based life form to absorb radiations out in space when that is their natural habitat. They dont need physical substance to sustain themselves, they need energy.

Us in the physical form, we need physical substanance...ie food and water. The critters are energy, hence they cannot use physical substanance, they would need to absorb energies or radiations and transform that intake of radiation or energy to sustain them, much like recharging a cell.

Thats just my opinion based on the evidence to date. And that evidence seriously outweighs any lens theory and the attempts, almost of a desperate nature I might add..to try to replicate what is seen in the STS video. None have been able to do that.

They come close..but close is not going to cut it.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Was saving that for a rainy day



Its a perfect umbrella to keep us nice and dry from all the rain (tears of fears from the debunking rear). It is nice and sunny now, no dark cloud here!



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Saving what?
You're not claiming they are describing a camera mounted filter that can differentiate between reflected and radiated light are you? Light is light, reflected or radiated. It would be a handy device but without spectral analysis there is no way to tell the difference.

The wavelength is irrelevant but just to "bam" you back, they were using visible wavelengths:

By using the TOP images to make measurements of the visible light radiated by the plasma, this process, and how it affects the spacecraft, can be better understood
science.ksc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you think that the tether would have been picked up by any camera, zoomed in or not, at a distance of 80 nm if it had not been charged?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Kandinsky
These critters are in their natural state, an energy form.

It would be logical for an energy based life form to absorb radiations out in space when that is their natural habitat. They dont need physical substance to sustain themselves, they need energy.

Us in the physical form, we need physical substanance...ie food and water. The critters are energy, hence they cannot use physical substanance, they would need to absorb energies or radiations and transform that intake of radiation or energy to sustain them, much like recharging a cell.


I'm familiar with Kirlian photography for some years but haven't used it firsthand. Kits are available on-line if anyone does want to. There's some argument about whether the aura is a life-force/ aura or a coronal effect from the electric field. As far as I know, science hasn't been able to identify the aura in any sense other than the natural electric field present in all things. Furthermore, no psychics have successfully shown an ability to see them either.

I can see your logic in concluding critters and their use of energy to survive. If you take the 'donuts' to be critters it's natural to extrapolate why they would be around the tether. They'd be attracted to the charged particles.

Where I disagree is the contention that they are 'critters'. My logic doesn't support the idea. For example, if they are attracted to charged particles wouldn't the neighborhood of the Sun be a far more sustaining environment? If there are so many this close to Earth there should be many, many more as we get closer to the Sun.

Maybe it's too hostile for them? It can't be too hostile because we've sent spacecraft round the Sun. We've got the NASA Stereo Mission out there right now. This raises another important point, the critters are visible. Why wouldn't the Stereo Mission and other missions have images of these apparently enormous things?

Another issue with the idea, is the Solar Wind that causes our Borealis. The charged particles are at a premium at the poles. Every time the Sun has a mass ejection, we get brighter Northern/Southern Lights. Modis is just one opportunity to capture an image of them at the Poles. There doesn't appear to be any images here either.

I appreciate that the evidence presented by other members doesn't satisfy your need for explanation regarding these Tether critters. If I felt the same way, I'd also come to my own conclusions. The camera lens explanation appeals to me and I accept that as my conclusion.

You mentioned in an earlier post about the STS-80 footage? I also think that's very interesting. I haven't spent hours looking into explanations but there aren't many out there. Hopefully, someone will resurrect a thread on STS-80. It's old footage and many people probably haven't heard of it.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Well even an energy based life form would probably find being too close to the Sun could give them plasma Sunburn!!


The major problem I have with the lens theory is that not one of them has demonstrated an exact replication of the "critters" in their examples.

We have seen one set of examples of simple out of focus dust particles, that "look" like the critters.

In other examples, we have seen these out of focus dust particles with holes that are significantly larger than the holes in the center of those critters.

But the two most important things about those examples that I have a problem with, are the pulsing swirling line from center to edge and back, and the morphing notches. None of the exmaples even shows the pulsing black swirling line, nor do any of the examples show the morphing notch.

There is something else I noticed in the critter's center hole. It changes size in rythmic pattern with the pulse swirl. Take a closer look at the slow motion video I posted a page or two back and when it zooms in closely at the critter, note the center hole changing size with the pulse swirl as it moves outward and back in again.

As I stated many times to DOF, show me an example of the lens theory that matches what these critters are doing.

Another thing too, and Zorgon pointed this out and I knew of it as well, is that the critter, after flying by the tether, changed direction as it moves away from the tether and heads downward once reaching the right side of the frame.

No ice particle or space junk or dust will make a gradual coordinated turn on its own in space without some outside influence upon it.

Cant be the shuttle causing it, its over 80 nm away.

Cant be the tether, it has no propulsion system on it.

I think the critters approached the tether because it was something that perhaps caused interest due to it being charged, and the fact it is a strange foriegn object in their habitat. But i dont think they were drawing energy from it since they would continuously take in energy no matter where they are in space. I think they were checking it out, perhaps startled by it so they moved in to investigate, and we do see swarms of them move in at once and gradually move off.



Time to go visit the dark room for a bit....zzzzzz


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Yes it definately changes direction! Now there is nothing nearby that would make some ice particle or debris or junk change direction. The shuttle is 80 nm away at that point, so no thruster blast caused it, and if it was thruster blast, it would not do a gradual turn, but a radical swift change in direction. This puppy does a nice coordinated gradual turn down when it moves to the right of the frame.

You are mixing things.

If those things are ice crystals they are close to the shuttle, not 80 nautical miles away, so a thruster blast could affect them (if they are close enough, and we do not have any idea of the distance, only that they are much closer than than the tether.

But a thruster blast would make them move in a sudden way, with almost instant acceleration.

Also, that is not necessarily an intelligent move, it's just a change in direction.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The STS 75 footage was not taken by an ordinary camera... so before we start discussing lens artifacts maybe we should look closely at the camera?

Only if the camera had a unique lens system, and as nobody as yet shown the camera's characteristics (just saying that it had an image enhancer and some filters is not enough), we can not really look closely at the camera.


In other words its NOT seeing dust and ice particles reflecting light... it is seeing CRITTERS that are electrically charged...

It's funny that the sceptics are the ones accused of stating things as facts when you make statements like this.

How can you be so sure that those are not dust and/or ice particles?

Even if the camera could only show electrically charged objects (which I doubt), why can't those be charged dust particles, for example?

Why are you excluding other options?

[edit on 19/2/2009 by ArMaP]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join