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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

What has failed here is common sense.

Well, common sense is still based upon what we define as real.
And the debunk attempts HAVE failed....for ME. Debunk posts in here have not made me believe more OR less. I am still sitting here with no idea at all what the discs/spheres/stuff that floats-swim-goes-walks-drives-hovers-runs-crawls or moves are. So they are a fail for me. perhaps not to others. But what others believe is totally up to them. I can only speak for myself here.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Being that the film is in two-dimensions, the distance between the particles and the tether would matter little if the particles are close enough to the camera when the tether is in focus. (though the video experts here will correct me if I'm wrong or explain in better detail).

Still not the same effect imo.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Why are the particles referred to as swimming? Not a single one of the objects shows any sort of independent movement. None of them change direction. If you watch the video, they all move in one of several directions and not a single one deviates from that path.

Actually the operator down on earth says to the astronaut: "...we see a looong...err...line, couple of starlike things and alot of things SWIMMING in the foreground." I think I got it from there.

And yes, none of them change direction ( though I think I see one making a slight turn to the lower right at one point )...however, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. If it is particles, rocks, debri..then they shouldn't change direction unless they bumb into eachother. If it is alien space ships or even Alien entities it wouldn't matter either. You don't become less of a man just because you walk straight forward right? So who knows...

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Also notice that the notches on these supposed craft change, gaining and losing them, as they move through the frame, each doing this at the same point.

If these were craft, the notches would the be oriented in one set direction while the craft was moving. But this does not seem to be the case with these objects, it is independent of the direction of the particular. (oh wait...I'm sorry, kilometer sized objects that no one can see from the ground...)

What you are talking about is what things here on earth can NOT do. You are using our stuff as reference ( which is pretty logical ofc ).
When discussing these things one has to be able to think outside the box, whith that I mean that we might not assume that their crafts looks, use fuel, are made of the same material as our crafts are.

Perhaps these things are not crafts at all. Maybe they are entities themselves. Again, think outside the box. Lifeforms from others worlds might not need to breed anykind of chemicals, nor might they need pressure. =P, again..who knows.

here is another nice video containing the same transparent, blurry effect ( in the beginning of the movie )

And some will say, hey it's particles burning up in the atmosphere.
Ok, it might be...But shouldn't they be moving. These comes to a stop and hover in a formation. This is also interesting. I don't automatically believe it is ALIENS AMAGAAD!!! but I sure start to wonder.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Considering humans are hard-wired for belief, it is easier for us to accept something strange has a supernatural explanation to it. The "out of the box" thinking is finding a natural explanation.

I don't agree. And thinking outside the box has nothing to do with "natural"...
it is about thinking in new terms that you usually don't, ways that defies our own logical reality.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Yeah, I know right. Don't they know the truth is the exclusive province of the believers?

What I mean is that that debunkers comes with just as much vague points as the believers many times. Still the issue often is declared as a hoax or something because someone came up with a possible explanation that fits. Debunkers doesn't prove anything just by showing a pic of a ballon that happens to resemble the UFO. And likewise the believers ofc.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
How is "I can't explain it, therefore it must be supernatural" using your imagination?

No more like "Hey, why do I keep searching for an explanation when I can't get everything to add up just so I can show this for the believers so they feel bad and I get some nice credits for "proving" it to be a particles or balloons."

Now, try to understand me right. You are VERY entitled to be sceptic, non believer or whatever one can be. Nothing wrong to be that. I even think it is good that blievers and sceptics to discuss. But I think it should be on equal grounds. Aaaand, I want to point this out, I am NOT speaking for everyone. Only for myself. And how I feel about these. And I sure as heck can be wrong too. =)

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Why are skeptics on ATS criticized for putting effort in to demonstrating their opinions and ideas, that they are either called "disinformation agents" or accused of having some psychological failing?

Why are believers rediculed for having a belief?

Actually, as I said, I think sceptics are good to have just as believers. I try to stay as neutral as possible. But I lean more towards a believer than a sceptic.

Wall of text is now done.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by easynow
i thought the topic of this thread was about alien donuts

why is there needless discussion about believers and skeptics ?

Hmm. Ok, I have to agree.

I back off with that discussion so the threads real agenda can continue.

Also want to say that I am in no way against SaviorComplex or Phage, I like them both and mostly agree with them. So I am not trying to start a drama or anything.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Akezzon]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
There was a really good debunk of this incident on UFO hunters. If you skip to about the 6 minute mark of the first video, you'll see it. It continues on to the next video.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:55 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:21 PM
I have to say again. And let's not discussing about debunkers, believers bla bla. Let's resume on facts. Fact after fact.

1) The notches in this particular video of STS 75 i demonstrated here ( )that is just a lens efect. The notches are NOT properties of the objects. PERIOD.
If anyone can prove that it is not a lens effect, please argument this. If not, why continuing to refer to the notches (my answer: because you didn't understand my arguments...why? superficiality, ignoring, too hard to accept technical argumentations etc. All of this is not my guilt, but yours). Please re-read this post and show where is the mistake about notches beeing just lens artifacts.

2) Anybody suggesting that those discs can be just and only behind the tether should watch this video:

So, it's a FACT that a little closer particle, brightly lit by the sun, and beeing out the depth of field interval, can appear as a disk, which can appear behind some distant tether even if in reality is much closer than the tether.

Don't you not yet understand that little particles around the lens, brightly lit by the sun, can be seen by the camera, and as a disk when out of focus? (contrary to what Sereda want to mislead you)

Then you should really take a look and think about this video, if you dare:

here, i've just do a big shake to a pullover, and produce little particles of dust floating in the air. And film them, as they were lit by the sun through the window, and on a darker distant background.
Don't this make you wonder? And look! Some discs appear behind those gold like lines of the furniture! How it is posible?
And more to observe: some discs appear or dissapear! And few particles even flashes a couple of times! This is really magic!!
(or not?)
Now imagine that the background it is much darker, fully black, like the space sky it is, then the very brightly sunlit particles floating around, and the camera shooting in low light situation as shooting distant tether requires....

Want more evidence straight from NASA video, that those are just little closer particles?
Think at this:

Originally by depthoffield
And now, FINAL PROOF, if you have eyes, that those are little particles floating around the shuttle, closer enough to becaome out of focus if camera zooms to infinite where the tether is. Look, the camera tries for a second or so to change the focus, from infinite where the tether is, to closer distance,

and what we see:
logical, tether became thick because became out of focus, but some discs..WHAT?! became focused and shrinks to brighter sharper points? WHAT?! Of course, because they are POINTS, little bright particles closer to the lens. Little particles of debris floating closer to the lens. These are FACTS. You see them?

3) If anyone suggesting that those discs are organic creatures. Please answer to this problem: the shuttle is moving in the orbit with about 8 kilometers / second. Repeat after me: 8 kilometers in one second. Which is about 10..20 times fast than a bullet!! So, those organic creatures MUST move with the same speed as the shuttle, to remain constantly in size in the movie as we see them even minutes. Can you understand this? Those alleged creatures MUST follow the shuttle with the same speed, else it will be invisible just as a bullet it is invisible on a ordinary movie. So, those who speak about organic creatures swimming around the shuttle, what it is your argument apart just "it looks like" (which is pareidolia). Tell your argument why those organic creatures follow in sincron the shuttle with the same speed and the same orbit. And, how, if those organic creatures exists on space, if happens to have any other speed or trajectory, wich is logic they could have, then, why they were not smashed by the shuttle, if, again, in one second the shuttle is 8 km away, and, after a second is right here, then, how they avoid the shuttle? Damn big problems with those "organic creatures".. Show the argument! But not something like "we, humans, we don't know nothing and anything is possible"..this is not an argument.
On the other way, space debris particles NATURALLY have the speed and orbit of the shuttle, since they are products of the shuttle. So, debris particles, just as a natural FACT, they float around the shuttle. And if shuttle activities are demanding or even out of control (like in tether incident), then a lot of debris is generated. Anyone thinking at hundreds of alien ships playing games there?

4) Regarding changing trajectory... this aspect was well argumented on other topics in the past (i remember reading one of them).
Cannot replicate easy this aspect.
But, the facts are this:
- at this altitude, there it yet exist a very very small atmospheric drag, this is why ISS or sattelites have to raise/correct their orbits from time to time. because of this little drag, the little particles of debris, which are more affected due to their small inertia, finnally fall to the earth, i read that small debris particles in a matter of some months fall and burn into high earth atmosphere. Anyway, the little atmospheric drag can affect little by little their trajectories in a matter of minutes, if particles are light enough.
- the shuttle,and the particles are independent one from each other. They have their individual trajectory, which is a circle (or more exactly ellipses). So, the shuttle, and the particles, not really moving straight, but with little curvature as time goes. This is really orbital balistic trajectories. The differences in the trajectories of the shuttle and different particles may cumulate in time as appearing that particles can appear moving in curved trajectory, which we see in the NASA movies, or even as moving in one direction, stopping, and then returning, just like a tracer-bullet is seen on the gun's spyglass of a sharpshooter as appearing to raise up, stop, and falling down to the target.

Regarding why sometimes, NASA camera operators follow one "donut" or other bright unknown object... it is easy: because, if the debris is bigger enough, it raises the risks, and a lot of scenery checkings MUST be done.

[edit on 6/2/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:30 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:53 PM
Have always really liked the tether incident...
Until now, it was one of my favourite ufo clips.
i think some excellent points have been raised and people have shown that things are not as they seem.

It is difficult to let go of something you believe in (for some) but i am happy that this "incident" is not as i first though...
I have asked those who "seemed" in the know about this incident, those who believed it was absolute proof...some time ago.... I'm still waiting for an

On the other side of it, those who actually know what they're talking about have come on here and proved almost beyond doubt, that this incident is not as it appears and i applaud them!! WTG Depth of field and Phage
good work as usual.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:54 PM
United Press International, FEB.1996...

"Satellite Signals a Puzzle"..Cape Canaveral Fla.-

NASA found a few surprises when it restored contact with a wayward spacecraft, officials said yesterday.

The $100 million-US Italian atmospheric probe inadvertently became a free-flyer Sunday night when its 20.7 Kilometer- (12 miles)- tether to the shuttle Columbia snapped.

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration engineers were able to contact the satellite Monday and turn on its science instruments, designed to collect information on Earth's electromagnetic fields and electrically charged particles in the atmosphere.

First radio signals from the satellite caused engineers some surprise: The configuration of several systems had changed from when NASA lost contact with the craft on Sunday,

For example, the spacecraft's nitrogen fuel tank was empty and its steering-thruster valves were opened. In addition, a gyroscope that had been left on was powered off, while two other gyroscopes remained on.

"there has been an event on the satellite that we do not fully understand yet," astronaut David Wolf told the Columbia crew" then it could not be an obvious possible computer malfunction. Obviously the nitrogen fuel tank that was emptied was not controllable by computer. How then did this phenomenon occur?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
The NASA commentators tell us the shuttle is 77 nautical miles away from the tether and the satellite, which appear just as a long cigar shape (the 12 mile tether) with a dot at the end (the satellite) Suddenly these brightly glowing objects start to arrive very quickly and gather around the tethered satellite. Soon, there are about 5 of them.

The NASA commentator tells us that the planet Venus is one of the objects we are seeing but then the alleged planet starts to move and the camera jolts away.

When the camera pans back to the tethered satellite, a swarm of more than 50 of these amazing objects starts to gather from the far reaches of the space above the Earth. The camera then zooms in to get a closer look at these mysterious objects and shows us classic UFO disc-shaped objects. And there are so many of them at different depths, some behind and some in front of the tethered satellite. These object are clearly passing behind the satellite and tether eliminating any hypothesis that the objects seen are only in the near-fields of the individual cameras.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

"So, those who speak about organic creatures swimming around the shuttle, what it is your argument apart just "it looks like" (which is pareidolia)."

I already cited the Work of Trevor James Constable and his Infrared Photography in the Late 1950's...

*You are purposefully admitting the Fact that the STS tether footage was film with a camera that was recording outside the visual spectrum...

If you observe their behavior and movement it is obvious that they act just like the microorganisms of our biological sphere.

If you observe the phenomenon from this perspective, you may come to some logical explanations for the phenomena;

The "Critters" are physical, but on the higher end of the energy spectrum.
This is why they are "invisible" and suddenly appear out of nowhere and this is why you can see them with infrared cameras, but not the naked eye.

When some inner mechanism triggers, then they overflow with energy and thus appear in the visible spectrum too - this is likely responsible fro a large percentage of sightings in what humans observe as the ufo phenomenon.

They are beings living on the edge of our three dimensional physical dimension. They manifest in ours but probably inhabit another dimension or they are made up of higher level energy (Plasma?). This is why they can flow through solid objects, appear and disappear, or "jump" great distances.

It is also likely that some of these energy creatures not only live in orbit, but also descend into the atmosphere and move about in high altitude. This could account for the more than common UFO orb phenomena and the UFO orb "fleets".

Diatoms - Or UFOs? ;-)

(Image Courtesy of

(Image Courtesy of

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:50 PM
NASA control in Huntsville, Alabama communicated with the shuttle crew live saying, "we see a long line, a couple of star-like things and a lot of things swimming in the foreground. Can you describe what you are seeing. They obviously all see the same picture! How could anyone miss the swarm of UFOs?

The answer was the stupidest theory anyone could come up with and it comes from an astronaut and nuclear physicist named Franklin Chang-Diaz: "the long line is the tether.
there's a lot of stray light and things getting washed out and...Claude is trying to adjust the camera...."

How does light go astray? Light is a constant. It cannot go astray! It follows the natural laws of physics. In space, because there is no moisture in a vacuum, light distortions would be impossible or minor at the very most. No light distortion could cause a full apparition as what NASA was alleging to what we were seeing! These objects have clear
size, shape and architecture. This was no light distortion or "stray light," effect.

I am shocked at how NASA's cover-ups and lies are so amateur! They aren't even good covers. Only a grade 4 student would believe what they are saying.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:59 PM
Another confusion here with "out of spectrum" camera.

Yes, NASA cameras in discussion can see in near ultraviolet light too. But this it doesn't mean that it ONLY sees in ultraviolet. In fact, those cameras sees in visible spectrum too, but in near-ultraviolet also. Because the senzor is capable of that. It simply has a larger spectrum senzitivity than the eye. Of course, for low light situations, when every bit of light is gold, somebody have to be idiot to sacrifice the extended senzitivity of the senzor and limit it just to visible spectrum. And near ultraviolet light is just light. The focus/out of focus phenomenon is exactly the same. The same situation with your ordinary home camera or photo-camera, which have some senzitivity to the infrared spectrum (which eye cannot see). The difference here is that letting infrared senzitivity will alter the colours, so, ussually there is a filter on top of the senzor which stop most infrared light. But, a little senzitivity yet remains, as you can see when filming your remote control for TV in action.
So, beeing in near-UV, doesn't mean at all that those debris particles (or their Airy discs) are not also visible in visible spectrum too. It is just a misleading to make you think only at invisible misterious alien activities. And remember, in NASA video, when operator asks the astronaut what is there, he speaks clearly about debris:

"and there is a litlle bit of debris which flying with us"

So, it is visible to the eye!

And, Exuberant1, you really don't understand a bit this NASA sequence:

This is PROOF of closer punctiform little particles. The explanations are in my previous post. Please learn more photography before ignoring this FACT so easy.

And, again...your critters...flyes with 8 km/sec as the shuttle? All of them? Why?

These are flaws in your logic. Repeat your thinking and not ignore the trivial FACTS (instead you just follow the extraordinary claims in absence of understanding of what you see)

[edit on 6/2/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:09 PM
The shuttle camera zooms away from the tethered satellite, now 100 nautical miles away, and we see that the swarm of UFOs is much larger than 50. The objects are so astounding in their movement (they move so freely) that it can be suggested that they may be "living spacecraft" that share space with constructed craft. Trever James Constable has reprinted his classic book, "The Cosmic pulse Of Life", with a whole new section explaining the tether incident in this context and there are lots of new tether pictures included.

None of them seem to collide with one another, which would be expected if the UFOs were some sort of space particles drifting about. They never hit one another. This is truly amazing!

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

"And, again...your critters...flyes with 8 km/sec as the shuttle? All of them? Why?"

Read my post silly...

It is where they live.

I bet they were attracted to the energy being released from the tether.

Zorgon says; "take a military grade IR night vision scope and just look up on any clear night (avoid the moon) you will see them...

They also hang around thunderstorms "

Here is a better view of a "Critter" on the NASA Control Room Screen:

(Image Courtesy of the LivingMoon)

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:17 PM
So, i have to understand that Trevor James is a con-artist too, like Sereda, regarding this incident?

Anyway, put your argument, your brain activity here, not just sent me to buy and read books.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
None of them seem to collide with one another, which would be expected if the UFOs were some sort of space particles drifting about. They never hit one another. This is truly amazing!

Yes, it seems my dust particles in my room do not collide also, so they are inteligent! just don't get it...
1) your critters are capable of flying with 8 km/sec? in sincron with the shuttle?! wow.
2) see again the focusing manever in NASA video

If you ignore this..... what can i say?

[edit on 6/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/2/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

"Anyway, put your argument, your brain activity here, not just sent me to buy and read books."

You tell fibs - I didn't send you to buy books ;-)

(Why are you being a fibber? - anyone can read my posts and see that you are being dishonest with that statement....)


*Are you calling Zorgon a Con-Artist/liar/Deceiver of ATS for Saying: "take a military grade IR night vision scope and just look up on any clear night (avoid the moon) you will see them...

They also hang around thunderstorms"??

Are you saying Zorgon is a Liar? Did he lie to ATS when he made this statement?

Are you saying he is lying about being able to see these things with night Vision Goggles?

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:30 PM
These objects are obviously breaking Galileo's and Newton's law of gravity because they are all moving through the same space at completely different rates of velocity.

Just the fact that they break a most fundamental law of physics, proves that they are free from the effects of Earth's gravity and have internal energy and propulsion: something no natural object could have.

The NASA radio control person is seeing the tether pictures for the first time also. He says to the Columbia crew "the tether seems to resemble a much wider strand than we'd expect. There is a Lunar silence! No one answers him. The tether is just a relatively thin conductor cable. From 100 nautical miles it should barely be visible. So it must have become ionized like a neon tube somehow.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by secretnasaman

"The tether is just a relatively thin conductor cable. From 100 nautical miles it should barely be visible. So it must have become ionized like a neon tube somehow. "

The Infrared Camera was able to see this effect, which cause the tether to appear to increase in thickness.

If you had seen the tether with your own eyes (or a normal camera) you would not have noticed this effect.

This energy is likely what attracted these non-intelligent "critters" towards the tether, where they were captured by the Infrared Camera onboard the shuttle. The astronauts could not see the critters when they looked out the window as the critters are not visible in the spectrum that we see in.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by secretnasaman
These objects are obviously breaking Galileo's and Newton's law of gravity because they are all moving through the same space at completely different rates of velocity.

Just the fact that they break a most fundamental law of physics, proves that they are free from the effects of Earth's gravity and have internal energy and propulsion: something no natural object could have.

ok, 2 ways:
1) my way, debris theory, argumented in almost all the aspects.And it doens't brake any physical law, it doesn't force anything, it uses what we have. If something is really wrong or false in arguments, please point it witt your arguments.

2) Your way: it forces everything: they are invisible, broke the laws of physics, and yet cannot explain the focusing maneuver in NASA video which clearly shows closer focused particles

Which way, and WHY?
You really don't have any argument, just extraordinary ideas.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The astronauts could not see the critters when they looked out the window as the critters are not visible in the spectrum that we see in.

You really should look again at NASA video, and see when astronaut says:

"and there is a litlle bit of debris which flying with us"

[edit on 6/2/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

Your dust particles do not pulsate, or have a hole in the center, nor do they morph the slit from one side to another as they move along, much less even have a slit on the outer edge.

Some of the "Dropa" UFO's move faster than others.

Someone was pointing out the movement of the shuttle going so fast that the objects should not remain about the same size. Well here is some basic momentum physics in zero-G for you.

When the tether was attached to the shuttle, it was dragged through the upper atmosphere. It broke loose, and slowly drifted away. In space, there is no resistance, hence the tether will still move along at the same speed it was moving when it became detached from the shuttle. In other words, its orbting the planet at over 17,500 mph, just as the shuttle is.

Those Dropa UFO's are flying around the teather, naturally they will follow its movement and follow its momentum, so as a result, both the tether and the Dropa UFO's dont just shrink to nothing because the shuttle is flying along at 8km per sec.

Now if the tether and the Dropa UFO's were at a stand still, then yes we would see them shrink and disappear as the distance increases at 8km per sec.

Also, since NASA was monitoring the tether, they will maintain the camera zoom and focus as much as they can, and we even see in the video that they zoom out, zoom back in and re-focus a few times.

But we do not see the distance between the shuttle and the tether/Dropa UFO's dramatically increase at all.

Organic in nature? Possibly. If so...they are awsome creatures, and something to wonder what it would be like to be able to exsist in space without the need for a space suit or oxygen, taking in natural radiations as food for energy.

To live amongst the stars like that....would be incredible.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by RFBurns]

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in