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

I found some more interesting nasa videos in my link folders:

STS 37:



The water dumb experiment:



You can see that the water just spreads out. It's not forming ice crystals or anything that could be similar to the objects filmed during the sts 75 mission.

STS 48:



STS 114:



Again the object stops and then makes an almost 180° turn...

[edit on 7-2-2009 by hackbart]

You guys, both pro and con, crack me up! I do not accept anyone on this forum being a NASA specialist who was in any space mission so all opinions are earthbound and speculation rules.

What is fact is that many NASA videos, whether released by NASA knowing full well what the videos contain, or accidentally releasing videos that contain anomalies that no one at NASA noticed but which were pointed out by sharpeyed individuals, etc., show anomalous objects that are not debris, ice crystals or any other b.s. explanation that is an insult to intelligence. Many such videos have been posted on this thread but still you have a few individuals who think that they can explain the unexplainable AFTER the fact.

You can replicate anything once you have a model. But it's the model that has to be taken into consideration for it happened first. Some of the more "knowledgeable" members here feel that their explanation has to be accepted without questioning but, in the end, it's always up to you and what you've learned about life that should guide you in accepting explanations. Just because it sounds good doesn't always mean it is good.

The explanations on this thread remind of me of what Jose Escamilla went through and is still going through with his discoveries of rods. There were all kinds of points of view regarding what rods could be and even Jose made erroneous assumptions not having any viable explanation. A few individuals performed experiments whose results they took for granted and tried to convince others that what they had found was the only explanation. Some quoted TV documentaries in which certain experiments were performed and, again, the results were quoted as being the only explanations.

Yeah, in some instances, their explanations could be accepted. But, as usual, not ALL of their explanations held water for you always had the model, the real event, such as the high-up-in-the-sky rods that were not the results of camera shutters, slow speeds, etc. These people could reproduce slow, in front of the camera bugs that resembled classical shapes of rods but they couldn't replicate the "big sky jobs." One of those big sky jobs scared the FBI into thinking a missile had be videographed! So much for the experts! I speak of this as an "experienced" rod researcher given the name TVRodMan by Jose and I am a member of his research team.


[edit on 7-2-2009 by Learhoag]

reply to post by Learhoag


um...perhaps you can start your own thread on 'rods'...this thread is on NASA footage of pulsating UFOs.... and a LOT of them.

The links above show even more proof of these UFOs.

I am astounded that even with NASA footage and even the astronauts themselves talking about alien spacecraft in observation any one on this thread even trying to debunk what these guys actually see and talk about as well as show on video (live stream at the time).

You ask for proof skeptics, and even when you have it you still won't let yourselves accept it. That is really bewildering.

wZn

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I certainly think some NASA sightings by astronauts are credible (in the sense of unexplained).

Which, whether you disagree with me or not, is why I don't like the STS-75 tether case. I think they are IFOs and undermine the other cases by association.

reply to post by RFBurns


OK, thanks.

I was not thinking that it was you who had taken that screen grab, I was thinking about the exact thing you said, a video that has some editing to show those images mixed with the other images, I think I have seen it once.

Just one last post before I going to bed (it's almost 02:20 AM here in Portugal).

I would like to point that what I think is the best explanation for the presence of those objects in the STS-75 video is just what I think, based on what I know and on what I have seen both in the Internet and in real life.

It would be very nice if I could replicate the exact conditions (flying in the shuttle must be an unforgettable experience), but as I can not I have to work with the things I can use.

And the fact that I accept the explanation of out of focus ice crystals or other objects like that does not mean that I am saying that UFOs do not exist or that there is no life outside Earth, nothing like that, I am only talking about these objects, in this case.

Also, some people like to say that they "think outside the box" but if a case like this appears and they accept that the objects pass behind the tether without thinking in other possibilities then they are just thinking inside a different box.

What I have been trying to do is to analyse what I see (and some things I did not noticed at first, it's difficult in a video with so many things happening at the same time) and see what possible explanations I can find.

Giant UFOs that are only visible in the UV wavelengths? Maybe, I do not have anything that can prove that this possibility is not a possibility.

Giant life forms that live in space and that are only visible in the UV wavelengths? Again, maybe, for the same reasons.

Small (when compared with 5 miles wide) particles closer to the camera that are out of focus and look like they pass behind the tether? Maybe, the objects look like something that is known, the possibility of small particles around the shuttle is a real possibility.

Does it explain everything? No, it does not explain why some of the objects change direction and other do not, for example, but I find an explanation based on known facts more likely to be a real explanation than an explanation based on things for which we do not have enough data to even know what they are, just that.

PS: why do people say that the objects pass behind the tether, because they look like they have a shadow of the tether projected on them?

Kind of absent from here..a lot of posts between...
I will say it again:

"Donuts" are bokeh (search the term), remember? Bigger the defocus error, it means bigger the size of the airy disk, and lower the brightness of the airy disc and bigger their transparency. Do you know why? Because the same amount of light traversing the lens is dispersed to a big disk, so, the luminosity of the disk decrease and its transparency increase. Viceversa, lower the defocus error, it means smaller the disc, but brighten its surface, and more appearence to be opaque. And when in focus, the airy disk shrinks to a very bright point, which now is the real image of the object, a focused one, in fact a point of light or a small particle. You can see the relation between degree of defocus and brightness/transparency of the object right here on NASA video, when for a second the camera change the focus from infinite to closer, and then back to infinite. This is direct PROOF that those discs are just airy discs




and here a bigger version, click on it:

img19.imageshack.us...



Pay attention of the stars and objects, what happens to them when the lens is changing the focus from infinite, to closer, and then back to infinite.

For adnotations, here is the first frame of the animation, when camera is focused to the infinite.

First frame:


Here we have a couple of stars and the tether well focused. The "S" star it is the brightest of them. And we have 2 green arrows pointing to two big airy discs, named "1" and "2", those donuts you like, which are the closest to the camera because they are the most out of focus. And a third airy disc, with black arrow, not so big, in fact it is a bit further away from camera, because it is less unfocused, in fact it is almost well focused.




And next is the frame in the middle of the animation, when camera is focused closer, and letting the distant objects like tether or stars to go out of focus:



In this, the stars are so unfocused that we cannot see them anymore (due to low brightness airy discs they produce but due to low quality of the movie too)l Exception is the "S" star, which became a visible airy disc, in fact, if you look closer to the animation, you can really guess its donut shape! Now those donuts make crazy our minds! The minds who don't know about BOKEH....
Anyway, but what happened toi the big airy discs "1" and "2"? WHAT? They shrink, gain in brightness, and became better focused ?!?!?
How about that? because, camera focusing closer, as we see in the focusing maneuver, it happens to focus more near to the position where the debris particle is, so it succeds to get better focus on them. And, because focusing closer, it means that: THE PARTICLE IS CLOSER. FINAL PROOF IN THIS CASE.

Look again the animation and don't let ignorance to blind your mind.


I would like to post again the "behind the tether" ILLUSION, to show to some people here what they IGNORE:




And to repeat the other video experiment with dust in my room, to show to other people here how minuscule dust floating closer to the lens CAN BE SEEN AND FILMED WITH CAMERA AS AIRY DISCS when they are illuminated by the sun





And, people, please stop reffering to those notches ...they are NOT properties of the objects, they are ARTIFACTS ON THE IMAGE RECORDED, CREATED BY THE LENS, look again here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Resuming, what we have in STS-75?

A lot of donutz.
Why those donutz here (and in other missions too) are always seen perpendicular (as circles) and never on the edge or in some angle?
Corect response: because they are LENS effect, airy discs, BOKEH.
Irational response: we don't know alien technology, we don't care about this, so because we don't know they are aliens!

Where they are?
rational response: it could be behind the tether, but beeing huge (miles across) it seems out of common sense to be here. Yet, airy discs, can appear illuzory to be behind distant objects, and this is logical and in common sense.
irational response: the airy discs could not be seen, or we don't know too much about them, or NASA camera doesn't produce airy discs because they are expensive, or little particles cannot be seen we think, but, we see on the recorded movie that those discs appear behind a line which we know is tether, so we accept "open minded" they are behind the tether and are huge.

What are nothces:
rational response: beeing airy discs, and seeing clearly that notches are obedient to the position in the camera frame, and knowing that bokeh imitate the internal constructive shape of the lens, we logical deduce that nothces not belong to objects, but are camera artifacts on the recorded image (not in reality)
irational response: they are constructive shapes of those huge alien ships, don't understant the coincidence of the nothces in the frame, don't care.

What are those objects appearing as discs in recorded image?
rational response: little particles of debris floatin arround the shuttle, as a product of its activity.

What is Orbital Debris?
Another source of debris is spacecraft and mission operations, such as deployments and separations. These have typically involved the release of items such as separation bolts, lens caps, momentum flywheels, nuclear reactor cores, clamp bands, auxiliary motors, launch vehicle fairings, and adapter shrouds. Material degradation due to atomic oxygen, solar heating, and solar radiation has resulted in the production of particulates such as paint flakes and bits of multilayer insulation. Solid rocket motors used to boost satellite orbits have produced various debris items, including motor casings, aluminum oxide exhaust particles, nozzle slag, motor-liner residuals, solid-fuel fragments, and exhaust cone bits resulting from erosion during the burn.

(www.aero.org...)
irational response: debris not exists or can't be seen

[edit on 7/2/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


"We still have the alien spacecraft under observance".

Please explain that one for me.

wZn

There is one thing I don't understand.

Have done some adorable pics here for you to look at while I do this wall of text.

What I am curious of is the distance.
I understand that the "particles" would have a good probability to be shown as enlarged unfcoused disc shaped anomalies while zooming into something that is further away.

But hey let's look at the distance shall we.
But first, let's have a look at the first pic.



The Tether is 77 Nautical Miles away from the shuttle that is 142.6 Kilometers or 88.6 Statued Miles.
Are you guys telling me that if you film something, and focus on the object 77 NM away you would see the particles float, swim, ride a bike infront of the camera??

Let's look on the next image, just so all understand how the perspective is now.



If so, I only have one word:


AAAOOOOGHA!!

Call Hollywood and tell them they have some problems to deal with.

Now, since I have a hard time buying that still, let us play with the idea that the "particles" are much much further away, but still closer than the tether.

let me remind you again...77 NM.

Continues 2 posts down...

Edit: Something happened while I posted it and half the post disappeared

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Akezzon]

reply to post by depthoffield


I agree with most of what you say, but you still can't define that these objects are particles or space craft. They're just of of focus light sources.

Regarding their distance and the "passing behind the tether": How you explain this scene?



One object passes in front of the tether, the other one behind it, while the camera is zoomed out.

And furthermore, what's your explaination for the rapid turns some of these objects make?

reply to post by Akezzon


At that distance the lens would likely be focussed at infinity across the zoom.

If they were so much further out, just so this focus effect would be valid, they wouldn't show at all would they?

Particles are small....very small. I think that is why they are named particles. If they were this far out the camera wouldn't pic them up.

Next pic



This would mean that, if these particles were to be shown in the camera as they are, they would to have been pretty darn big aye?

This means, to me, that both believers and debunkers are wrong...

But what it is we will never know.

To sum it up

If the particles are close to the camera and you focus on something 148.6 Kilometers away, I have a hard time believing that they would still be visible. If anyone can make a video disproving that..please do.

If the "particles" are further away it would mean that they had to be ALOT larger than a paarticle to be shown on cam.

Anyway, I have no clue at all what these are. This is why I love this site so we can speculate.

Cheers

Originally posted by ArMaP

Also, some people like to say that they "think outside the box" but if a case like this appears and they accept that the objects pass behind the tether without thinking in other possibilities then they are just thinking inside a different box.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PS: why do people say that the objects pass behind the tether, because they look like they have a shadow of the tether projected on them?

As the old saying goes, "seeing is believing".
In this picture, which entity would you say is in the foreground at first glance?



I've seen the "evidence" presented , yes, all 5 times, who could miss it? I'm still not convinced this one is debunked. While I appreciate all the alternative viewpoints, I'm going to have to, for myself, leave this one in the inconclusive category.

Sometimes in life, there are things that we'll never get to know the truth about.
In this case, we don't have a spare camera, shuttle, tether, and a whole lot of velocity to play around with to try and duplicate this anomaly adequately for me to call this case closed.

What we do have is a pile of opinion, one as good as any other. Just as the case when you try to discuss where the sky ends. Even the most intelligent, seasoned scientists and astronomers won't try to speculate beyond our finite observable universe.

I can say, "The sky never ends", and there's always going to be someone saying, "Yes it does, we're in a bubble", or "It's still expanding". To which I reply, "What's on the other side of that"? They say, "Nothing", and I say "Keep going".

I say it doesn't, and we've just proven that the impossible is, in fact, possible. Your truth may differ, yet someday we might all share the same reality.

For those who don't believe there's something else out there, if you take into account the "sky never ends" equation, mathematically I think you'd be far outside the majority.

In my fun little hypothesis, I like to think we're all just space itself bunched up into different forms of energy and mass. That said, I also don't think it implausible for energy to take on a form which may seem "organic" in nature.

In the end, I can only hope our destination is to elegantly unravel back into the void, as one.


Peace

Originally posted by ArMaP

And the fact that I accept the explanation of out of focus ice crystals or other objects like that does not mean that I am saying that UFOs do not exist or that there is no life outside Earth, nothing like that, I am only talking about these objects, in this case.

Take a look at this vid. The same object as the donuts seen in the Tether incident! But this one is shot from the ground in UK...



Check out how the object turns from edge-on to broadside-on. Some have contended that these are just lens artifacts as they conform to the lens geometrics.

But how does one account for a lens that changes shape??? Or is this vid a hoax? Or Morphing dust/ice particles floating near the camera? Most unlikely! And oh yes, check out the ubiquitous 'notch' in this object too!

Cheers!

reply to post by hackbart


Good vid! There's absolutely no doubt that some of those objects pass BEHIND the tether and some others IN FRONT! So if these are ice particles, the ones passing BEHIND the tether must be bloody huge ice bergs at least 5-10 km across!!

But I read an explanation somewhere that the object appears to go behind the tether because the luminosity of the object being less than the tether, is obscured by it and therefore appears to passes behind it. Huh?

Cheers!

Originally posted by Akezzon
There is one thing I don't understand.

Have done some adorable pics here for you to look at while I do this wall of text.

What I am curious of is the distance.
I understand that the "particles" would have a good probability to be shown as enlarged unfcoused disc shaped anomalies while zooming into something that is further away.

Yes, this is about.

Originally posted by Akezzon
But hey let's look at the distance shall we.
But first, let's have a look at the first pic.



The Tether is 77 Nautical Miles away from the shuttle that is 142.6 Kilometers or 88.6 Statued Miles.
Are you guys telling me that if you film something, and focus on the object 77 NM away you would see the particles float, swim, ride a bike infront of the camera??

YES YES YES!


The first image, is your SUPERFICIAL WRONG BELIEVING:




The second image is the correct one:



So..Houston, we have a problem! People doesn't understand a bit an image, they think superficialy.
You really should understand notions as depth of field, hyperfocal distance, 2D capturing of a 3D reality etcetera.

Try to use this to undestand some scenarios:

www.dofmaster.com...

cannot? then what are you arguing here? your lack of knowledge?

Look here an easy way, some movie tutorials about depth of field:
snodart.com...



So, i now know that you didn't understand a bit my previous post, with this DIRECT PROOF of closer defocused particles:




So... it's my damn debunker guilt you doesn't understant some basics in photgraphy.

Originally posted by Akezzon
If so, I only have one word:

AAAOOOOGHA!!

Call Hollywood and tell them they have some problems to deal with.

No, i don't need to call Hollywood, and my advice is to not call yourself, since you didn't understand some basics.


Regarding the 3-rd image when you put the debris at 50 miles away... there can be debris, of course. But, given the distance, it canno be seen not even with Hubble!

[edit on 8/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Akezzon

If the particles are close to the camera and you focus on something 148.6 Kilometers away, I have a hard time believing that they would still be visible. If anyone can make a video disproving that..please do.
Cheers

You have a hard time, and low level of knowledge regarding this, so you want us to learn you the basics, to fly in space to film for you those damn particles...


Tahe o look of this:



How dare those little closer (a few feet or less) particles of water fog iluminated by the powerful blitz and appearing as AIRY DISCS, how dare them to show in the image with the distant buldings too? And if somewhere in the picture was the moon too, how dare them to show themselves with the 400000 kilometres away moon? How dare them?



[edit on 8/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

"We still have the alien spacecraft under observance".

Please explain that one for me.

wZn

Yes, FAKE, BOGUS audio in an although real footage with a donut airy disc. There are tons of faked material, just for twisting minds of the people like you.

[edit on 8/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Take a look at this vid. The same object as the donuts seen in the Tether incident! But this one is shot from the ground in UK...

Thanks for another collection of airy discs too! Don't tell me you really believe that those discs are NOT airy discs? Then... you have a problem too! Learn about BOKEH.


I can make orbs as Airy dics too:

the first disk with a 1'o clock dark spot:



a frame extracted:





the second movie, look the second half of the movie to see a big detailed ORB:




a frame extracted:




Damn those Airy discs!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Check out how the object turns from edge-on to broadside-on. Some have contended that these are just lens artifacts as they conform to the lens geometrics.

But how does one account for a lens that changes shape??? Or is this vid a hoax? Or Morphing dust/ice particles floating near the camera? Most unlikely!

Yes..wrong!

Tahe a look again at my first youtube movie in this post...at 0,07 mark, and then at 0:40 mark and going on.. DAMN those branches, make the airy discs to morph, like in your movie too!




And, anybody want some more donutz?

Then eat this ones:







Airy discs with detalis on them, and dark centers.


Some real morphing orbs? Take a look of this:





Damn again those airy discs! (or bokeh)



[edit on 8/2/09 by depthoffield]

Last year, I thought that these 'donuts' were UFOs. It didn't take long to change my mind. Everything I've read since confirms that they are not critters or UFOs. In this thread and others, the same points are raised again and again. The ones that choose to believe in the face of all the evidence are entitled to their opinions and won't change them

In spite of the evidence against and the explanations, a leap is made that requires Space to be swarming with 3km in size Critters that can travel at the same speed as the Shuttle. There are one or two problems with this idea. Several Observatories monitor Space for Near Earth Objects. That's NASA so here's another one.. To avoid any Agency conspiracy worries, there are also Amateur Astronomers.

They monitor the skies for any objects large enough to harm the Earth if ever they collided. We don't want a Tunguska event in a populated area! So far there have been thousands found, ranging from a few metres to kilometres in size.




If Space was teeming with this amount of UFOs, the amateur astronomers would notice. Even NASA can't stop Joe/Jane Average talking to his neighbor. Nobody here really believes they are Alien craft.

Critters then? Enormous critters that travel fast and are attracted to energy like moths are drawn to a streetlight. Clearly unintelligent as they move like inanimate objects. Why don't any Amateur Astronomers see these things? They are clearly visible to our eyes as evidenced by Ground Control asking about them. Ahh well, they are made of energy and can't be seen in the dark sky. Energy has mass. A 3km ball of energy would surely demonstrate gravity and heat. Several hundred of the critters would show up in the infrared.

To accept these donuts as anything other than the fair explanation of particles, seems ambitious and unnecessary. It requires that Amateur Astronomers, Space Agencies (Russian, Chinese, Indian, European, America) are lying or concealing the evidence. Other footage taken in Space that doesn't feature donuts must also be suspected of foul play. The processes by which the footage can appear to show 3km donuts has been very well explained and proven. To believe in them is to accept the process of camera focus errors, but not in the case of the donuts. Depth of Field and others are either entirely right regarding image errors or entirely wrong. They cannot be wrong where it doesn't suit people and right when it does. If reality has to take a shuffle to the left to make something true, it's a step too far.

Most people on ATS are interested in UFOs. There's a lot of evidence for some of the UFOs being intelligent. Threads and threads of great evidence. When something is disproven, why ignore the fact? Let it go and find another interesting video or incident. The STS-80 footage hasn't been adequately explained yet.