NASA Camera Operator Zooms In on Hubble UFO!

reply to post by Exuberant1


Hasn't this phenomenon shown to be caused by the camera technology used and over-exposure?

www.youtube.com...

Kept getting a backslash added to the URL when trying to embed the youtube video, hence the link.

Originally posted by najapi
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Hasn't this phenomenon shown to be caused by the camera technology used and over-exposure?

No.

It has not.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Exuberant1
No.

It has not.

So far, two videos have been provided demonstrating how the STS-75 incident is an optical-illusion. You are either lying or ignoring the evidence.

To no-one in particular on this thread.

Please focus on the topic and away from observations on fellow members.

At nearly five miles down on the ocean floor where pressure and temperature "should" preclude life we have abundant life, vis.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Why therefore can we not have life of some sort in the outer reaches of our planet, sure they may be very simple, possible converting sunlight directly to energy, they don't need to be intelligent nor ET's, just life as we don't yet understand.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
At nearly five miles down on the ocean floor where pressure and temperature "should" preclude life we have abundant life, vis.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Why therefore can we not have life of some sort in the outer reaches of our planet, sure they may be very simple, possible converting sunlight directly to energy, they don't need to be intelligent nor ET's, just life as we don't yet understand.

I don't think anyone here is trying to debunk the possibility of life out there...




This thread is in regards to the 'object' seen in this video, and other videos as well...that's it.

reply to post by prof-rabbit


Many space UFOs could actually be a form of complex plasma with life-like qualities known as complex space charge configurations:

Cell-like space charge configurations formed by self-organization in laboratory

Erzilia Lozneanu and Mircea Sanduloviciu (Department of Plasma Physics)


A phenomenological model of self-organization explaining the emergence of a complexity with features that apparently satisfy the specific criteria usually required for recognizing the appearance of life in laboratory is presented. The described phenomenology, justified by laboratory experiments, is essentially based on local self-enhancement and long-range inhibition. The complexity represents a primitive organism self-assembled in a gaseous medium revealing, immediately after its “birth“, many of the prerequisite features that attribute them the quality to evolve, under suitable conditions, into a living cell.

Excerpt from the Introduction:

In this paper we would like to report on the possibility to create in laboratory a complex space charge configuration (CSCC) representing, in our opinion, the simplest possible system able to reveal operations usually attributed to a biological cell. It appears in a cold physical plasma, i.e. a medium presumable similar to those existent under prebiotic Earth’s conditions, when an electrical spark creates a well-located nonequilibrium plasma. In spite of its gaseous nature, such a CSCC satisfies to a large extend the criteria usually required to recognize the creation of life in laboratory.

*The abstract of the above paper can found here:

www.springerlink.com...

The full version costs money, but it can be found on the internet if one looks hard enough. Many similiar papers are also available and are definitely worth the read, especially if they are authored by the same group who if they wrote this one.




[edit on 6-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

I do not know if these are aliens or light blobs on the camera. What I can say is that if you did have a animal that could live in space it might look like a HUGE jelly fish. Just think for a moment. We are trying to build solar sails that will have to be huge to gather the energy from the sun.

If you were to exist in space it makes since that you would have a form like a jelly fish to gather the light and use it like a water current to propel and change direction, gather energy from the sun as well as mineral resources floating around planets.

It also makes since to gather around planets that would attract other minerals for eating. Planet gravity and atmospheres would provide a feast in comparison to deep space.

Maybe that is what the Apollo Astronauts saw and what our camera's capture up there today. I believe flesh would be difficult to pick up on radar which would be why they would be hard to find, locate etc...

They may not even be intelligent but it is possible such creatures could exist out there.

Originally posted by Xeven
Maybe that is what the Apollo Astronauts saw and what our camera's capture up there today. I believe flesh would be difficult to pick up on radar which would be why they would be hard to find, locate etc...

They may not even be intelligent but it is possible such creatures could exist out there.

My point exactly, that "blob" is the same as the blobs shown on the tether incident albeit slightly smaller.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
(BOKEH guy, you don't count...)

I believe you may feel good if you were a moderator here, and ban me with pleasure.
Anyway, i will respond to you because i feel this is polite

Originally posted by Exuberant1

A similarly shaped UFO was spotted during STS-115. *Note the trails of plasma flowing behind it:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79e8e9c778e.jpg[/atsimg]
*the above set contains two images, the third being a magnification of the second.

Similarly you said? with what? with something like a plastic bag floating there? It doens't look like a donut. Also, it is NOT a camera effect, or bokeh. It is an unknown object.
Original source: spaceflight.nasa.gov...

S115-E-07201 (19 Sept. 2006) --- This picture of unidentified possible small debris was recorded with a digital still camera by astronaut Daniel Burbank onboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis around 11 a.m.

Also, it doesn't look at all as being a "plasma" thing. It is recorded with a digitall still camera by the astronaut, it looks very sharp and in clear day illumination, so the camera uses short exposure time (too bad EXIF data is not available). So the astronaut see it with his free eyes, and then photographed it, to document it. You should produce data from where result THIS OBJECT is from plasma, and the NASA engineers are lying/hiding when say "posible small debris" instead "plasma critter".


===============



As for all the donuts posted here again and again, like a religious icon...

They are all BOKEH produced by catadioptric lens by the closer common small particles of debris floating with the shuttle as a product of its activities... it was said multiple times, but you continue to sell the same illusion to fresher readers...




Just to remind you, as it seems you missed them:

The shape of the objects recorded in STS75 videos (especially obviously), are not their REAL shape, but the camera induced shape of an out of focus image, called bokeh.


Here is explained why the shape is not real objects shape, but only just a function (consequence) of position in the frame: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Here another graphical example of the same shape dependance to the camera frame:



explained in detail here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Some cat-eye effect:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/236bc4c2be8e.gif[/atsimg]

and also yours OP and my first response in this thread here about cat-eye optical effect: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Also, direct evidence that those discs are just BOKEH, out of focus images, produced by closer small particles (most probable common debris):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07dd320e9f21.gif[/atsimg]

and all the related explanations here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



How about some little BASIC optics of how donut-like bokeh is produced by catadioptric lens:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31fb04430d76.gif[/atsimg]

and here a bigger version (use it!): files.abovetopsecret.com...

explanations and further links here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and continued:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


========================


HOW ABOUT BOKEH WITH NOTCHES produced by NASA camera's itself?

Look at them:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45a6c0ec1c8e.gif[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6828a81943b2.gif[/atsimg]

More, we see here the cat-eye effect too!


Detailed explanations here: www.abovetopsecret.com...




2 and a half cents.





[edit on 6/9/09 by depthoffield]
edit bad english

[edit on 6/9/09 by depthoffield]

Extraterrestrial craft produced and manned by alien beings, or... lens flare?

I'd have to go with the latter.

However, you could always say they're just making them look like lens flares. But the potato I ate earlier could just as well have been an alien ship disguised as a potato, in which case I am screwed.

Originally posted by cnuum

I'd have to go with the latter.

You have yet to submit any evidence which supports your position.

*Stationary examples of BOKEH are not applicable.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Actually, I'd say that you have to supply some good evidence, not me. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, Occam's razor is on my side (those have more or less the same idea). It's far more likely, judging by what we're seeing, that this is a lens flare, so its the much less likely option that requires evidence.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Whilst perusing the latest video releases by Martyn Stubbs, I noticed a most peculiar donut-shaped UFO being filmed during one of the missions.

The video is from STS-61 and in this UFO video it is readily apparent that the camera operator filming the UFO was aware of it. He even zooms in on the strange object and follows it for a brief time. However, it seems that the camera operator must have realized that this downlink is being watched by members of the public because he quickly cuts away....

....From this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08bd2edd289f.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/561a344cbb3b.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3412457311c2.jpg[/atsimg]
(The Hubble is also in this shot; right side)


[edit on 5-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

However, it seems that the camera operator must have realized that this downlink is being watched by members of the public because he quickly cuts away....WHAT A BS assumption and you know it Exub!

Originally posted by cnuum
It's far more likely, judging by what we're seeing, that this is a lens flare...

...You just can prove it.

And you are invoking Occam's razor to recuse yourself from the exertion of intellectual rigour. Nice try, but it's too obvious.


Lens Flare you say?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79e8e9c778e.jpg[/atsimg]





[edit on 6-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


What I'm saying is we probably can't prove anything conclusively just from those shots, but without conclusive proof we'd be safe to assume that it's lens flare, since that's what they look like, and the probability that it's some physical object that's actually there are very, very slim.

Then you post pics of some other NASA shots. I have no idea what they are, and haven't said that they are lens flares. Because I can't tell what they are, probably means to you that I've admitted they're alien spacecraft, or previously undocumented plasma-based lifeforms. But I wouldn't be so easily convinced that that's the case.

The possibilities are intriguing but what I consider intellectual laziness is to believe something extraordinary without good evidence.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by cnuum]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Pretty sure that one was already pointed out as "unknown debris." Looks like a plastic bag to me.

But, since there's no "Safeway" logo on it, we might as well assume that it's obviously an alien entity piloting an intergalactic spaceship.

Isn't there a saying out there somewhere that it's up to the person making the extraordinary claim that then bears the burden of the proof of that claim? I'd call aliens an extraordinary claim, and thus while people are debunking your proof as ordinary objects or camera defects, it's up to you to come up with more conclusive proof. Not just get irritated and demand proof from them (which they provided anyway).

[edit on 6-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]

Originally posted by cnuum
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

What I'm saying is we probably can't prove anything conclusively just from those shots....

....And that is why it is a UFO

I knew you'd come around.

That's a bit of a crock, because you seem to be going tounge-in-cheek with the term "UFO". Like you're saying "We don't know what it is, but we all know it's an alien, hee hee!"

Just because you don't believe the evidence laid out doesn't mean you're correct when you say those objects are extraterrestrial in nature. It's up to you to prove your claim, to the standards of those you're trying to convince. Not the other way around.

Yes, it's unknown, yes it's in space so it could be considered "flying", and yes, it appears to be an object. That does not equal alien.