Youtube: STS-75 'Notched Disk' UFO seen orbiting Moon

What a silly hoax. So this guy was filming the moon and when the gigantic, strobing UFO comes into the shot you don't follow it with the camera or even have a reaction to it, you just keep the same focus on the same spot on the moon and don't even try to film it prior to flying in front of the moon or after going by? Seriously...HOAX.

I almost always automatically throw out any UFO video that comes with it's own 30 second pre-video commercial.

It looks the same as the objects in the 'tether' footage. The whole reasoning over the tether, was that the objects were out of focus and close up. Follow the same logic, then this object is also close up and nothing to do with the moon, since the film is ground based. It doesn't matter what the object is, or what it's supposed to be.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Yes mr rediculian you make a good point.

There are a few things obvious...the tether video the object @420 morphs about. in the moon video, it stays the same shape. @429 the tether object matches the moon object.


The other thing is the way they move...the tether objects move straight while they morph about....while the moon object seems to rotate while moving in an arch not changing...the tether orbs really dont seem to care what they move in front of...while the moon craft does not want to leave the moon boundries.

The 420 object is also good because nothing else interferes...a nice black background



(I forget where this picture cam from...I think I googled it. I just had it in my pictures)

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
It's the Tether incident UFO fellas it seems.

It also seems added in to the video. It's too clear and the moon is not in focus as well as this UFO is. Maybe a really expensive telescope has the features to focus in on closer objects, but I doubt this guy's scope can do that.

It definitely looks to be inserted into the video.

Your expert eyes say this is inserted. Wow. Actually I notice both are shaky.

Originally posted by smurfy
It looks the same as the objects in the 'tether' footage. The whole reasoning over the tether, was that the objects were out of focus and close up. Follow the same logic, then this object is also close up and nothing to do with the moon, since the film is ground based. It doesn't matter what the object is, or what it's supposed to be.

Nice, no matter what the picture, and object, always some explanation, eh, bird, satellite, ballon, smudge ,space junk. OH in this one, no matter what the object is, its irrelevant....good one!

In other words, the debunking was just a pile of JUNK! As usual.

Well to me its called, clutching at straws, and hoping everyone is having a brain far!@

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by smurfy
It looks the same as the objects in the 'tether' footage. The whole reasoning over the tether, was that the objects were out of focus and close up. Follow the same logic, then this object is also close up and nothing to do with the moon, since the film is ground based. It doesn't matter what the object is, or what it's supposed to be.

Nice, no matter what the picture, and object, always some explanation, eh, bird, satellite, ballon, smudge ,space junk. OH in this one, no matter what the object is, its irrelevant....good one!

In other words, the debunking was just a pile of JUNK! As usual.

Most often things in pictures are things in real life. A picture of a bird is a bird, satalite, balloon and so on. Now once we get a hold of a picture of an orb it will be an orb. With this one it is different because it's the same as what is in the tether clip. A=C and A=B because B=C. C=X X can be whatever you want. A really doesn't care

reply to post by JimOberg


That look just like those filmed by NASA in the famous ISS Theather Incident.

Don't look like ice crystals too me, though.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by smurfy
It looks the same as the objects in the 'tether' footage. The whole reasoning over the tether, was that the objects were out of focus and close up. Follow the same logic, then this object is also close up and nothing to do with the moon, since the film is ground based. It doesn't matter what the object is, or what it's supposed to be.

Nice, no matter what the picture, and object, always some explanation, eh, bird, satellite, ballon, smudge ,space junk. OH in this one, no matter what the object is, its irrelevant....good one!

In other words, the debunking was just a pile of JUNK! As usual.

Well,
There are still things about the tether that are bothersome, and it's this very same object that is the cause. One is the object only partially passing over/under the tether, at the top so to speak, where the tether's right dark edge at the top remains visible, and that dark spots, (not light spots) on the disc of the object, (not the centre) reappear in passing, I thought that strange, no obvious overwhelming of light to include the darker part of the tether then. Again, a german analysis of this same object in transit, is spot checked as it transits, and shows that the transit is not linear, but is in an arc, some ambiguity there. There is also the little noticed 'black dot' that is in front of the object disc, and is not part of it. It appears to transit the object disc, right to left, but that could also mean that it is unmoving, since the object disc is moving in the opposing direction. Now all that could possibly be explained in the original analysis, I think Jim himself did his own analysis, but those particular things I don't think, are dealt with.

I'd like to show you guys something. But first, I've seen this "UFO" (the doughnut with a notch), many, many, many times.

Where have I seen it? Out at night with my telescope. My Newtonian Reflecting telescope, that has a large primary mirror and small secondary mirror that gathers faint light, and puts it at the eye piece for focus.

Whenever anything that is much closer to the opening of the telescope comes into my FOV while I'm focused on something far away (the moon, a star, a planet, etc), I see a large circular doughnut with a notch.........

Here is why:

In this picture you can see down the opening of my telescope, the primary mirror, the secondary mirror, and the eye piece holder:



Now take a look at this next shot. It's the camera looking through the eyepiece holder, without a eye piece and focused on the mirrors:



Let's make it a bit out of focused. After all I'd be focused on a far object, not the mirrors, right?



Wow, amazing! A notched, doughnut UFO!

Why should this concern you? Well there's a lot of people posting pictures and YouTube videos showing these critters........but all those seem to come from people using telescopes. The OP video shows that clearly. You are not going to get a large image of the moon like that on video without putting your camera through a telescope. Go ahead and try. I have a 210mm zoom lens, and it still won't look that big.

What about all those NASA videos?

Hrmmmmmmmm.......

Most of those videos are not taken with a hand held Sony cam corder, or the like. They are normally cameras that are attached to...........;drum roll:........a telescope! With reflecting mirrors!

What about those solar shots of the sun?

Well let's just take a look at the EIT camera for SOHO shall we?



Oh my, look at that! A primary and secondary mirror!

Makes you wonder what those notched and doughnut shaped UFOs might really be, huh?

To eriktheawful,

So what you are saying then, in the case of the STS75 that the multiple floaters are all in the camera/ telescope, dust, mites, moisture or what have you, (WHY) plus whatever may be outside. Then there is possibly a chance that the Sun's microwaves, excite the water/ice particles outside like in a microwave, in a way that mimics organic motion. And also then, are astronauts not immune to a bit of microwaving from the sun, or a big blast from a pulsar.

Originally posted by smurfy
To eriktheawful,

So what you are saying then, in the case of the STS75 that the multiple floaters are all in the camera/ telescope, dust, mites, moisture or what have you, (WHY) plus whatever may be outside. Then there is possibly a chance that the Sun's microwaves, excite the water/ice particles outside like in a microwave, in a way that mimics organic motion. And also then, are astronauts not immune to a bit of microwaving from the sun, or a big blast from a pulsar.

edit on 12-6-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

What I'm saying is that what people are seeing is a LOT closer than they think. Any experienced telescope user has seen this before, many times.

The close, out of focus object will not only appear like that shape, but will be translucent too. Because the telescope is focused on the further object.

Notice how the Venus video that everyone is going on about, what exactly is the telescope focused on? Venus? No. The sun, which is further way. Venus won't give us that "doughnut hole" effect because we're looking at the backside of it. It's dark. just like the mountings I've pointed out will be. But because we're focused on the sun, you will have the out of focus object appear translucent.

Take a look at everyone that used just their camera's sans reflecting telescopes. Their pictures are not showing that translucent effect. Why? Because they don't have primary and secondary reflecting mirrors.


As for the STS video: I don't know what they are. Because:

A) they are WAY out of focus.
B) they are way out of focus because the telescope is focused on the tether. Not the something that is very close to it.
C) they are small objects that are very close, out of focus and moving in zero G in a vacuum.

But no one here has to take my word for it. Use a reflecting telescope and try it yourself, or find someone that has one, and see for yourself.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Excellent post. So this a very common occurance for folks that use telescopes and regardless of the make model or whatever, you get this result. Because the object in this video looks almost exactly like the one from the NASA video does not mean that it is lifted from the same source. Also from what you are saying, it seems like this could be easily recreated by anyone just by dangling something in front of the telescope.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I already agree that the affect, in the main is from something close up, and diaphanous in nature, but in STS75 there is a lot going on, probably inside all the mechanical gubbins, but also outside as well. The definite 'black spot' I mentioned earlier is seen in front of the object disc, and so has to be closer that the object disc, and not diaphanous. I post this link that shows the black spot, (it need not be moving) and other features. The music is nice, but turn it down,

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I already agree that the affect, in the main is from something close up, and diaphanous in nature, but in STS75 there is a lot going on, probably inside all the mechanical gubbins, but also outside as well. The definite 'black spot' I mentioned earlier is seen in front of the object disc, and so has to be closer that the object disc, and not diaphanous. I post this link that shows the black spot, (it need not be moving) and other features. The music is nice, but turn it down,

www.youtube.com...

Not seeing the black spot...can you give a time and where to see it?

Also what cases the pulsating?

What band is that in your profile pic?

just to compare

While we are talking about a video of the Moon, I just wondered why we have not seen a video of the moon taken from the ISS? I read they just got some new HD external cameras, maybe Mr Oberg can pull some strings and convince someone to let us see what they are capable of?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Not all telescopes. Refraction telescopes have no mirrors, and uses lens only. however they are limited in that they can not focus light the way reflecting telescopes can. If a refraction telescope is used, the effect you will get is just a fuzzy, translucent looking object that is round, but there will not be a dark center and/or notch.

Refraction type scopes are also sized limited. Both in diameter (normally no bigger than 3 or 3 1/2 inches), and length.

Reflecting telescopes can have very large focal lengths because you can bounce the light around. They can also have very large diameters because it's much cheaper to make thin mirrors than it is big lenses.

Newtonian telescopes have bigger openings, and are mounted normally on a equatorial mount.
Dobsonian telescopes normally have HUGE openings and primary mirrors (10 inches or more), and are nicked named "Light Buckets". They are normally mounted on simple AZ Dec mounts.
Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes are a good example of compacting a Newtonian telescope, but the idea of gathering light to a focal point is still the same, using mirrors.

There are MANY different types of telescopes. Here is a list:

List Of Telescope Types

reply to post by eriktheawful


Hi Erik...correct me if 'm wrong...but you claim it's a mirror thing, an artifact of refraction?

I don't know if this video is real or a hoax, but the donut is moving relative to the moon. No camera movement and shaking (and it is shaking and moving) is having any influence on the objects movement....it seems separate from from the viewing apparatus.

wouldn't that at least exclude the mirror/camera artifact,. Wouldnt the reflection be affected by the camera movement, and would the notch rotate, which it clearly does. The notch should have remained stationary on one side of the object if it came from the camera?

Or am I missing something?