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

reply to post by ziggystar60


No, I do not consider Sereda a reliable source, but I don't think he would lie about something while using some else's name.

But what that scientist said, if I interpreted it right, is that the sensor used could be affected by X-rays and Gamma rays, meaning that the camera was not shielded against them, but they would appear as noise, but the camera could only focus on something in the wavelengths that can pass through the lens unaffected, the lens also acts as a filter, so, depending on the material used to make the camera lens the camera could film in the visible wavelengths and other possible wavelengths from near UV to the nearer (to visible wavelengths) part of the far UV range.

In any case, that shows that the scientist, even if he was someone knowledgeable about the cameras used (I do not know if he was or not) did not knew what type of lens the camera used.

Also, I have read that this camera was made on purpose, or at least altered just for this mission, so I am still looking for its characteristics.

Thanks anyway.

Because NASA would never allow anything to put the satellite and experiment in danger, there was no water dumps during the tether deployment. The camera lens would have been focused on infinity and therefore nothing could be out of focus. If not the tether would be just a blur. So distorted or stray light had very little to do with what we see on video.

Some rude people on this thread with their bully posts,( a typical debunker tactic) are like a "black hole" because
they do the same things to most people's minds that black holes do to light: absorb them all into their false presentation!

When the "tether incident" happened, the shuttle Columbia was drifting from 77 to 100 nautical miles away. How did stray water ionize to form ring shaped "DONUTS," that travel 100 miles away in seconds and then pass around, in front of and behind the tethered satellite, revealing themselves to be 2-3 miles in diameter. The amount of water needed to form a ring 2 miles in diameter, let alone 50 of them, is too large. No shuttle ever has that amount of water to release as it would overburden a mission.

If anyone is suggesting that the balls of light (the donuts) were merely "ionized plasma" (gas) and we let them try to tell us the Columbia had enough gas to fill 50, two to three mile wide balls of light with gas (impossible), we are still left with the fact that plasma cannot form a perfect, angular architecture, cannot bend in sharp distinct angles and cannot hold any real shape (even a perfect circle) when it is not confined in a containment system.

Originally posted by RFBurns
I seriously doubt the camera difference issue as being the defining reason why those slits are there, or why there is a hole at the center, and why that slit morphs from one side to another.

That almost sounds like a desperate cry for support of your theory.

Not really, just make some tests and you will see that the shape changes with the lens (or camera, if the lens cannot be changed) used.

This is a frame from a video that I made that shows an out of focus light. The camera used was a Canon MV730i.



And this is a photo of Venus, out of focus, taken with a Panasonic DMC-FZ30.

reply to post by ArMaP


Neither of those looks anything like the donut objects.

And I will say it again. The objects in the tether video are NOT out of focus.

Nice pictures tho.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by ArMaP


Ok here is a capture from the tether video (avi) of one of the objects that is in focus.



And here is a youtube highly compressed video (flv) of an out of focus donut UFO from the tether video.



So why are all these attempts to say its out of focus ice particles or dust dont even look like that 2nd image up there????

COUGH!!!!



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


OK, I will say it again, maybe I can explain it better this time.

The shape of an out of focus light seen through a lens depends on the way the lens was made.

The two photos I posted were not supposed to look like the objects on the STS-75 video, they were supposed to show that the shape varies with the lens.

If you have access to a Canon MV730i you can see that any out of focus light would look like the one I posted, and if you try it with another camera from a different maker you will most likely see a different shape, that is why you can see on YouTube several videos of "orbs" or whatever the people want to call them that look all the same, and when you look at the camera with which they were filmed you see that all were from the same maker.

Considering this, if anyone can get an old NASA camera with the same lens then they can make a video with the exact same shape as those disks on the STS-75 video.

reply to post by ArMaP


I know your images were not to demonstrate the objects, but to demonstrate lens effect between cameras and lens types. Would have been a better example of that if you had taken photos of the same object right after one another IMO.

It would be nice to get a cam or a lens or both like the one NASA used, but I dont see what that will prove, since no one here on Earth can just zip on up into orbit with it and start taking pictures outside of the atmosphere.

But are we forgetting or just overlooking the fact that about 90 percent of the tether footage of these objects is not footage that is out of focus?

Why are people saying its out of focus effects due to lens manufacture when on these objects, detail can be seen, the pulsing going from center to outer edge, the morphing of that slit moving from one side to another?

And if we were to say out of focus effect, why does the out of focus image I postead still show the slit on the side, as well as the center hole as they show up when in focus as well?

So first its ice particles...as was claimed by the debunkers years ago, then its some sort of light effect reflection from pannel lights in the shuttle, now its the lens type and how its manufactured causing these objects.

Whats next...loose m&m's floating around that one of the shuttle crew accidently threw out the window?





Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Because NASA would never allow anything to put the satellite and experiment in danger, there was no water dumps during the tether deployment.

I think these images are from several hours after the breaking of the tether, so I don't know if they had resumed the water dumps.

The camera lens would have been focused on infinity and therefore nothing could be out of focus.

Wrong, when the camera is focused on infinity everything from what the lens "considers" the closer limit to infinity are focused, not everything, and that is what the people that think that these were ice crystal or other thing like that are trying to explain, that if the camera was focused on to infinity then objects closer to the camera would appear highly out of focus.

Those things can even be flying saucers flying 10 metres from the shuttle, they could still look like out of focus if the camera was focused on something some 80 nautical miles (why don't these people use kilometres like civilised people ) from the shuttle.

Some rude people on this thread with their bully posts,( a typical debunker tactic) are like a "black hole" because they do the same things to most people's minds that black holes do to light: absorb them all into their false presentation!

Unfortunately, some people (from all sides of any discussion) like to use "bully posts" for some reason, but I think we should just ignore those posts.

When the "tether incident" happened, the shuttle Columbia was drifting from 77 to 100 nautical miles away. How did stray water ionize to form ring shaped "DONUTS," that travel 100 miles away in seconds and then pass around, in front of and behind the tethered satellite, revealing themselves to be 2-3 miles in diameter. The amount of water needed to form a ring 2 miles in diameter, let alone 50 of them, is too large. No shuttle ever has that amount of water to release as it would overburden a mission.

Once more, what the "ice crystal" people mean is that those things are close to the camera and that what makes people think that they pass behind the tether is a camera artifact. I will post a video from an experiment I made sometime ago as soon as I can find it and upload it to the new ATS Media Portal.

If anyone is suggesting that the balls of light (the donuts) were merely "ionized plasma" (gas) and we let them try to tell us the Columbia had enough gas to fill 50, two to three mile wide balls of light with gas (impossible), we are still left with the fact that plasma cannot form a perfect, angular architecture, cannot bend in sharp distinct angles and cannot hold any real shape (even a perfect circle) when it is not confined in a containment system.

I don't think that anyone suggested that explanation, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Would have been a better example of that if you had taken photos of the same object right after one another IMO.

Yes, it would have been better, but neither cameras are mine, they were both borrowed by my boss, and while I can have the Canon at home (because it's not that good as a video camera and we rarely need a video camera), having both cameras at home would be a little abusive from my part, but it can be done.

Why are people saying its out of focus effects due to lens manufacture when on these objects, detail can be seen, the pulsing going from center to outer edge, the morphing of that slit moving from one side to another?

You can also see detail in this out of focus image that I just took.

And if we were to say out of focus effect, why does the out of focus image I postead still show the slit on the side, as well as the center hole as they show up when in focus as well?

The two photos you posted show the object in the same conditions, not one on focus and the other out of focus, if those disks are out of focus lights they are all out of focus, they just look sharper some times, like anything in any video of moving objects.

Also, a close up of a monitor is not the best way of showing that something is on focus.

So first its ice particles...as was claimed by the debunkers years ago, then its some sort of light effect reflection from pannel lights in the shuttle, now its the lens type and how its manufactured causing these objects.

No, to me, at least, it has always been out of focus ice particles reflecting the light.

Originally posted by Exopolitico

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh

 

The donuts are not pulsating. This has been answered. They are tumbling, rotating. Because they are irregularly shaped the intensity of the light reflected by them varies with the rotation.

They are totally out of focus. That is why they appear to hold the same shape and orientation. We are not seeing the particles, we are seeing the distorted image of an out of focus object. The circular shape we see, as has been demonstrated, has nothing to do with the actual shape of the particles but with the characteristics of the camera.


[edit on 2/5/2009 by Phage]

Phage. With all due respect. I would be so curious to know which branch of the US government you belong to. You are telling us that the objects do not pulsate? Are you looking at the same videos? I am yet to see one single post of yours that ever agrees with anything plausible. If I didn't know better, I would say you are a paid intel disinformation agent/debunker.

What can you say about the objects that stop and change direction? That's right, there is a Phage logical explanation coming.

Don't you know we are very aware that secrecy alone was not enough and was escalated by paid disinformation agents?

I bet there will be more members who will agree with me than you probably think. Members, if you agree with me, just star me to prove a point. Thank you.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exopolitico]

Brilliant post!

You know they are UFOs - because we know it. The ones that won't ever believe in UFOs and ETs , well that's their problem, not ours. Remember that.

If it quacks like a duck - it most probably is a duck. Unless it's a duck hunter with a duck call.

These UFOs although are from NAZA vision (suspect every time)... I believe this footage was aired live? Then they quickly shut off the vision to hide (yet again) more proof of UFO or ET craft. You can imagine the ETs up there laughing their arses off playing with the NAZA cameras.

They look friendly too. I mean hostile UFOs would have blown the shuttle outta orbit right? These ETs definitely have a good vibe feel to them. Bring on the next stage (and I don't mean the false flag alien invasion) of introduction I say. Great times.

wZn

reply to post by ArMaP


These aint no lens anomalies of out of focus ice particles. Out of focus objects on video or stills do not show detail on the object surface.

The photos I posted btw are of two different objects from that entire video, different times during the length of the video, of two seperate objects.

Lens anomalies...sheesh...when will this nonsense end!

If these are lens anomalies why dont we see the exact same objects in other UV video footage from the shuttle???????????

We should see these things on a regular basis in every UV video ever taken on all the shuttles, not just during some tether experiment.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


They no longer show live space video from the shuttle for nothing.

It used to be a regular feature of the NASA TV channel. No more.

The only live stuff you see is the launch, and the landing. Everything else is tape delayed..edited, censored.

These are not out of focus ice particles or lens artifacts or other garbage.


They live...ops deny.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
These aint no lens anomalies of out of focus ice particles. Out of focus objects on video or stills do not show detail on the object surface.

I don't know how you can be so sure of that, but that's OK, usually the sceptics are the ones accused of being sure of their own opinions.

The photos I posted btw are of two different objects from that entire video, different times during the length of the video, of two seperate objects.

Are those really two frames from the original NASA video? I ask because the first looks like a frame of a screen grab and not a frame from a video.

Lens anomalies...sheesh...when will this nonsense end!

Probably never, as I do not see any way of we ever really knowing what those things were.

If these are lens anomalies why dont we see the exact same objects in other UV video footage from the shuttle???????????

Because these are not lens anomalies, they are a side effect of the way the lens are made and how their internal structure affects the light (even invisible to us) that passes through the lens elements.

To explain it better, and for those that do not know it, here is how the lens of a common camera (a Nikon D70) are made.



All those elements inside the lens body affect the way the light passes through the lens. The fact that they are sometimes made from different materials also helps making lens artifacts in extreme conditions something unique to each type of lens.

We should see these things on a regular basis in every UV video ever taken on all the shuttles, not just during some tether experiment.

We should see these things on a regular basis in every video, UV or not (this has nothing to do with the wavelength), ever taken with any camera, as long as it shows out of focus points of light.

I have found it.

Here is the video that I made in 2007 to see if I could recreate the effect of a bright light close to the camera looking like it passes behind a far away bright object.

reply to post by ArMaP


In your 2007 video, all I see is a red, wide dot lighting up whatever that is in the distance, it doesnt appear to pass behind it to me, but illuminate the rod or stick or whatever that is that is facing the camera.

Cheers!!!!

I don't know why people are so desperatly trying to argue about their appearance, it really does not matter in either case. They zoom in on an object hundreds of miles away. Even if it was a space ship 50 meters in diameter, it would look almost exactly like this. There's no way to be 100% sure that these are small particles or 50 meter space ships just by the fact that they appear as lense artifacts.

Also, the fact that they pass behind the tether gives us no clue about their size or true nature. It could be a lense effect or they could truely pass behind. Both is possible.

Zimmerman made a good video about it where the camera is pretty much zoomed out, and there it seems like some are really passing behind, and this could not be related to the zoom or a lense artifact:



But we still have to consider that the footage is recorded in the uv light spectrum, and that the tether is in reality only a few centimeters thick (is that the correct term in english? :/), but appears enhanced due to it's electrical charge caused by the ionosphere, and so will the other objects.

However, this could also affect objects of all sizes not just small ones.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by hackbart]

I also did a little informal test myself to demostrate how aperture effects blurring of objects in the foreground with and without a backlight. The setup is as follows – an EOS 20D DSLR (specifications here) with a 50mm F1.8 lens (specifications here). As in the following picture:

img11.imageshack.us...

It was set to ISO-200, manual focus, with the focus set on the wicker basket behind the airplane.

For non photo nerds I should translate a bit - the aperture is the opening of the lens as the number increases the size of the hole decreases. Here's Wikipedia's explanation. The size of the aperture affects depth of field and blur - known as bokeh.

Here's the shots un-backlit:

f1.8
f2.5
f3.5
f4.5
f5.6
f8

Here's the shots backlit with a Maglite (not very high-tech I know):

f1.8
f2.5
f3.5
f4.5
f5.6
f8

It demonstrates a couple of things - firstly how objects fairly close to the lens can be rendered unrecognisable by focusing issues (especially if lit up) and secondly how the lens and backlighting effect blurring. Around the middle of both sequences the blurring takes on the characteristics of the lens. Naturally with smaller brighter objects less of the frame would be occupied. I've left the EXIF intact but reduced the quality to keep file sizes small.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by jackphotohobby]

[edit on 7-2-2009 by jackphotohobby]

reply to post by ArMaP


The first image I posted is an image from a video file. I didnt take the image. I dont have CRT monitors. I wouldnt take an image off the monitor if I can take it directly from the file source. Its on a video file (avi) I have had for several years, its a 15 minute video. There are sections of the video that have those scan lines and sections that dont. Two sources of footage on the same video file.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by jackphotohobby


The problem I see with your test is that it still does not demonstrate what we are seeing in that tether video. In your test images, we do see things out of focus with the focused handle of the wikerbasket.

But...and again I emphasize...the objects and the tether are in focus. Plus, during the video, they zoom in to the tether, and those objects that are small when zoomed out from the tether, get larger as does the tether when the camera zooms on the tether, and the objects do not become even blurier at that point, they are in focus where we see pulsing details from their center hole to the outer edges.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Thanks for the reply (and I mean that). But I don't think the objects were in focus. I think they were outside of the minimum closest focusing distance of the lens, so they would increase in size proportionally as the lens zooms. I expect the lens had quite a large minimum focus distance and a fairly large aperture because it was reliant on available light (large aperture = shallower depth of field). Basically most lens don't focus extremely close unless they're designed with macro in mind. In fact you can see the larger close objects grow and fade out as the STS-75 video zooms in, suggesting that proportional relationship with the zoom.

YMMV without looking at the exact specifications of the lens I could be wrong. I'd love to see the specs .