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

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

It's not an issue of lens impurity, it's an issue of optics, and it affects all camera lens. Past and present.

As always, for people not understanding laws of optics, but beeing witness to the effects of optics, the misteries came in their mind. Yes, bokeh is a FACT.

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
To have donut shaped
UFOs they would need a cadiotropic mirror lens, like NASA.

I always suspected that the NASA lens filming donuts, are catadioptric mirror lens type, but i didn't find specifications on them.

Jackphotohobby, or anyone else, have you more information on this? Because if they are catadioptric...it will tell a lot!

Yet, making donuts, discs with dark holes, it not necessarily a property of catadioptric mirror lens. But catadioptric mirror lens ussualy makes donuts-like bokeh.


The following images are taken by an Olympus C760UZ camera, an ordinary camera. But the bokeh this camera produce in this situation, is very sharp discs with dark center.





[edit on 11/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Akezzon
I say it again.

Just because there is no logic doesn't mean it is impossible.
Right things are not always logic.
Logic is the way of the Obvious.

If we lived by this all the time I think we wouldn't develop so much as a race as we have. Most discoveries are made because someone had the guts to think outside the box and work from there.

Now, I am not saying DOF are totally wrong, but I am not saying he is right either. All I am saying is that you shouldn't be so fast to rule something out just because it is illogical.

For example, you shouldn't deny the possibilities that these discs could be something else than dust and lens effects just because the notches move and you find that illogical.

Well let's say these things really ARE alien. Then freakin' of course it is illogical. Their entire existence would be pretty illogical to us.

Logical things in our world might be just as logic OR illogic in another world. We can't just go by logic when it comes to discussions like these.

But that doesn't mean we should embrace it blindly, sceptism is needed as well. Ying & Yang.

Nice words, almost philosophical.
Yet, the image caught in the NASA lens is just logic and is in just in our world. The discs with notches are rays of light going through the lens, and making an image to the senzor, which is recorded. There is no reason for the notches beeing obedient to the NASA camera, and only in this particular mission dealing with notches, unless the notches are not belonging to "UFO", but made by the camera itself in recorded image.

And since the notches are a part of the UFO's shape as we see in the image recorded, then we cannot be sure what is the real shape of the real objects (alleged "UFO"s) passing in space. So, do not account for notches as evidence for UFOs in STS 75, because if someone do, then the reason for the UFO's notches in this movie seems to be something like "we don't know nothing, everything is posible" (Really?)

And it means also, that the connection with notched Dropa stones which Sereda or others speaks to the crowd..well..is nothing but "pushed pareidolia". "it looks like". LOL, if someone look in the STS-75 video, it will find UFO's with two notches too! So, these are similar to other Dropa discs not yet discovered?




[edit on 11/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 11/2/09 by depthoffield]

Well, you have clearly decided not to stay in the middle and see the possibilities from all view points.

You have clearly made up your mind, you post same videos and pics all over again and again.

You keep finding new ways to argument this. I have never said that they ARE aliens, yet you imply I have. I have however said that I am not so sure your view point is the correct one. I don't think anyone of us here have it.

We speculate and let our imagination flow wildly, cause maybe....MAYBE an idea so crazy that if it was solid the hight of craziness would point god in the a$$, could perhaps make us thing in a new direction no one would have ever though about before.

And hey, come on...

Yet, the image caught in the NASA lens is just logic and is in just in our world.

It is logic cause you believe so. I didn't say that the "object" was illogical.
I said we can have logic as a reference when we discuss this. Quite different.
And you don't know for sure that it is what you claim it to be. You can not provide us with hard evidence, only comparison experiments you've done yourself.

This is a case that is impossible to have evidence of.
We don't know what it is, and it will remain that way.

I'm not certain what's being said by depthoffield. Are you saying, it's small debri, or defects in the lens of the camera? Break it down to me, as your theory is very interesting indeed and I'm not too well versed in camera lingo.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by sdrawkcabII]

I think the Triangle "UFO"'s with neatly positioned lights are mos def NOT any kind of UFO's but are our own advanced millitary secret projects .

OTOH the wierd shaped ones like the Donuts , the cylinders , the cigar shaped or the dancing around ones , the fooey ballshaped ones , the domed ones with wierd lights , the gigantinc silent ones are all mos def alien UFO's

Funny thing is..if all this is just lens impurities, well we should see these impurities with notches and center holes in every single photograph and every single film that exsists.

Im sure that NASA wont be the only ones with cameras that sport lenses with impurities.

These recent HD releases of older movies sure do seem free of lens impurities.

Maybe they made better lenses 50 years go?



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Funny thing is..if all this is just lens impurities, well we should see these impurities with notches and center holes in every single photograph and every single film that exsists.

Wow...you just went ahead and ignored everything that is being said, didn't you. I don't know why I'm being surprised, you've ignored every other bit of evidence and argument against the stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile supposition that these are alien craft.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

you've ignored every other bit of evidence and argument against the stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile supposition that these are alien craft

Wow, that's quite a judgment. Imagine if it had any basis.

Nobody here said that these were alien craft. Perhaps not ruled out as a possibility, and even few people may have made the suggestion, but again, no one has said that these are definitely alien craft.

The STS 80 vids show a form of plasma life IMO, not too sure about the other ones.

If I actually had a better connection than the crap called 'dial up' I'm using now because my dsl is out, then I'd post a whole lot of credible links here for you that prove the existence of plasma life. If you're interested.. just google; "Plasma Life Forms".

But SC, the problem is that you're quickly ruling out anything that apparently goes against your preconceived views and notions.

Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to lash out and call anyone who believes these things to be alien craft as.. " stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile ".

Skeptics here are presenting more and more ridiculous explanations as the pages pass for this thread, yet no one has lashed out by calling them the things you said SC.

Five stars, three cheers, and two thumbs up to depthoffield for his conclusive research!!! You should win the DENY IGNORANCE award for putting it together so nicely. BRAVO!! I have always known these to be camera artifacts. Anyone who has spent enough time with a camera can recognize this. Ok I gave you thirteen thumbs up instead of two because I was borne on Friday the 13th.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Wow...you just went ahead and ignored everything that is being said, didn't you. I don't know why I'm being surprised, you've ignored every other bit of evidence and argument against the stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile supposition that these are alien craft.

I could say the same for you and your friend DOF too. Ignoring everything I said about your lens theory. Providing a handfull of pictures taken with consumer grade cameras is HARDLY any evidence to conclude jack.

BTW are you and DOF even aware of how intricate lens crafting is? Especially high end industrial grade lenses?

And point your finger somewhere else. IM getting pretty sick of you skeptics trying to single me out. What is it..do I ruin your little world that much? Do I ruffle your feathers so much that you and a few others need to be on this recent wagon of single out RFBurns for some odd reason?

There are hundreds of members here that side with my opinion, and hundreds of thousands across this internet who have studied this video for YEARS, long before ATS was even a thought, that conclude the same thing I do.

So unless your prepared to single out those hundres of thousands, if not a few million people who go byond the mudane explanations, everything from junk, to ice, to reflections, and now lenses, put your pointy finger away and stick to the topic.


Thank you.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by groingrinder


Using the same pictures over and over hardly constitutes validity for a reward...cept maybe the desperations-r-us reward.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Funny thing is..if all this is just lens impurities, well we should see these impurities with notches and center holes in every single photograph and every single film that exsists.

Im sure that NASA wont be the only ones with cameras that sport lenses with impurities.

These recent HD releases of older movies sure do seem free of lens impurities.

Maybe they made better lenses 50 years go?

Cheers!!!!

The notches exist because of the internal structure of the lens. Just like the donuts that are produced when you rack a point light source out of focus when using a Catadioptric lens. (A lens incorporating both mirrors and lenses.) You only see the notches on objects that cannot be focused upon. The reason you see these on NASA film is that cameras on earth are not in zero gravity and the internal impurities in earth bound cameras are affected by gravity and do not float around inside the lens.

Originally posted by Majorion
Wow, that's quite a judgment. Imagine if it had any basis.

You're right, it has no basis. The evidence painstakingly presented by DepthofField and others is not a basis at all for thinking these are something other than aliens.

Of course, the supposition these are aliens is built on the solid evidence of...nothing.

Originally posted by Majorion
Nobody here said that these were alien craft

You're right, no one here believes these are alien craft, plasma entities, or what-have-you. That is why the debate has been going for 14 or so pages now, because no one ever said that.

Originally posted by Majorion
But SC, the problem is that you're quickly ruling out anything that apparently goes against your preconceived views and notions.

Better than the "That Looks Strange! It MUST Be Alien!!!" thinking that dominates this board, and then desperately clinging to it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Please, tell me how you or anyone else desperately clinging to this as evidence of alien life, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are any different? Every single bit of evidence has been ignored, again and again.

Besides, you have no idea how quickly I came to any conclusion about anything. Show me one shred of evidence, just one tiny piece, that these are anything other than ice-crystals and I will be willing to accept the possibility those objects are somehow alien.

Originally posted by Majorion
Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to lash out and call anyone who believes these things to be alien craft as.. " stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile ".

Except that I didn't, you are twisting my words, something that you frequently do. Anyone can scroll up and see I called the supposition those things, never said that about the people.

Originally posted by Majorion
Skeptics here are presenting more and more ridiculous explanations as the pages pass for this thread, yet no one has lashed out by calling them the things you said SC.

So, because these explanations do not fit your "preconceived views and notions," the evidence present is ridiculous.

We are still waiting on evidence that these are plasma-entities, alien-craft, or whatever split-hair you want to call them, outside of the puerile "I can't explain it! It must be alien!"

[edit on 12-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by Majorion

If I actually had a better connection than the crap called 'dial up' I'm using now because my dsl is out, then I'd post a whole lot of credible links here for you that prove the existence of plasma life. If you're interested.. just google; "Plasma Life Forms".

I'd start a new thread called "Proof!! Plasma life is real!! Images included!!!" Before that I'd get an agent and sort out the book, documentary and DVD deal. Then I'd retire as an Honorary Professor of the Physics Faculty of an Ivy League University. Like Homer Simpson might say, "Stupid dial-up stopping my Nobel Prize. Doh!"

reply to post by groingrinder


Out of all the images presented, from consumer grade cameras, to try to shove this lens theory down our throats, not a single one of them even looks like those within the sts video..not a one.

Oh they resemble what is in the sts video, but not the same.

For one, where is the pulsing, rythmic center to outer edge patterns? Why has no one posted a sample of a motion video of these lens impurites that has the out of focus illuminated dust or ice particles or other nonsense with the pulsing feature?

Show me something that is difinative and demonstrates what we see in the sts video with regard to a lens impurity as the cause, then I might consider it.

Until then...I believe my opinion, as well as countless others, will remain the same, no matter how much finger pointing, lens impurity theory is thrown at us.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Show me something that is difinative and demonstrates what we see in the sts video with regard to a lens impurity as the cause, then I might consider it.

Show me something definitive that demonstrates these are whatever split hair you believe it to be. Show us, one piece.

You can't.

It's pathetic.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Until then...I believe my opinion, as well as countless others, will remain the same, no matter how much finger pointing, lens impurity theory is thrown at us.

That could easily be changed to "we'll believe what we want no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary," and you and Majorion will then condescend to us saying we don't want to believe anything that doesn't fit our preconcieved notions.

And I and countless others will know what we do, because we looked at the evidence as opposed to your method, shoving your fingers into your ears, clamping your eyes shut and humming a song very loud to block out anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved notions.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

You're right, it has no basis. The evidence painstakingly presented by DepthofField and others is not a basis at all for thinking these are something other than aliens.

Sure they can be something else...anything from..oh lets see, over the past 15 years the theory of space junk, to ice particles, to light pannel reflections from the shuttle itself, to dust floating around inside the shuttle, to condensation on the lens itself, to random noise and even a very elaborate setup to demonstrate how a light effect can be painstakingly constructed to mimic what is seen in the sts video.

But not a one..not a single example, has yet to provide this pulsing and morphing effect of the notch in ANY of the evidence.

I am amazed that after 15+ years, this old issue is still being debated.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Of course, the supposition these are aliens is built on the solid evidence of...nothing.

Nothing you say? I suppose those ancients who painted UFO's in them caves and carvings on rocks is nothing either. Oh lets not forget about the mention in ancient texts...including the bible. Its all nothing I suppose.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
Nobody here said that these were alien craft

You're right, no one here believes these are alien craft, plasma entities, or what-have-you. That is why the debate has been going for 14 or so pages now, because no one ever said that.

The debate has been ongoing for 14 pages because of this new, ONLY on ATS, theory about a lens impurity being the cause for what is seen in the sts video.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
But SC, the problem is that you're quickly ruling out anything that apparently goes against your preconceived views and notions.

Better than the "That Looks Strange! It MUST Be Alien!!!" thinking that dominates this board, and then desperately clinging to it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Please, tell me how you or anyone else desperately clinging to this as evidence of alien life, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are any different? Every single bit of evidence has been ignored, again and again.

Actually I dont think its being ignored. I think that it is more of tired of hearing the same excuse, and using the same pieces of evidence repetively...its like wearing out a new pair of shoes 3 days after you buy them, time for a new pair of shoes.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Besides, you have no idea how quickly I came to any conclusion about anything. Show me one shred of evidence, just one tiny piece, that these are anything other than ice-crystals and I will be willing to accept the possibility those objects are somehow alien.

How can ice particles survive in space when on one side facing the sun its 250+ degrees F and on the other its -250 degrees F? I have never seen a half ice particle and half melted ice particle.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to lash out and call anyone who believes these things to be alien craft as.. " stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, simpleminded, half-witted, and puerile ".

Except that I didn't, you are twisting my words, something that you frequently do. Anyone can scroll up and see I called the supposition those things, never said that about the people.

Sometimes you dont have to write it out in plain view to get your demeanor or agenda across.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion
Skeptics here are presenting more and more ridiculous explanations as the pages pass for this thread, yet no one has lashed out by calling them the things you said SC.

So, because these explanations do not fit your "preconceived views and notions," the evidence present is ridiculous.

We are still waiting on evidence that these are plasma-entities, alien-craft, or whatever split-hair you want to call them, outside of the puerile "I can't explain it! It must be alien!"

Yep, we are still waiting for the evidence. No doubt there. And after 15+ years of this one issue bouncing back and forth across the defining line of what is possible, and what is not...can you or anyone of your group say that it is entirely impossible that these could be something else besides ice particles or lens impurities?

No you cant.

So...the debate continues.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Majorion
Yes I go with the plasma stuff there re the NASA sts vid. Call them ufo orb, call them (like the British MOD does) plasma, these things exist and are being filmed like seen here.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by RFBurns
Show me something that is difinative and demonstrates what we see in the sts video with regard to a lens impurity as the cause, then I might consider it.

Show me something definitive that demonstrates these are whatever split hair you believe it to be. Show us, one piece.

Split hair? Seems like you and your buddy DOF are the ones splitting hairs here. And getting quite loud in your responses. We...do you understand the meaning of that word.."WE"?? WE believe they are something other than your comfy zone lens anomaly ok. Pretty simple. Whom ever said that I was the defining and final say in who believes what anyway?

Point that finger at everyone who believes, or put it away before your lens falls and chops it off.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You can't.

You cant either prove its ice or lens anomaly because for one, you dont have access to an identical camera, with identical lens, with identical environment to prove its a lens anomaly. If you do have access to that, well by all means, throw it out here for all to see.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It's pathetic.

It certianly is. Glad you see it that way. Now if its that pathetic to you, go find something else that is not so pathetic to you, you might save yourself alot of frustration and wasted time.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by RFBurns
Until then...I believe my opinion, as well as countless others, will remain the same, no matter how much finger pointing, lens impurity theory is thrown at us.

That could easily be changed to "we'll believe what we want no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary," and you and Majorion will then condescend to us saying we don't want to believe anything that doesn't fit our preconcieved notions.

And I and countless others will know what we do, because we looked at the evidence as opposed to your method, shoving your fingers into your ears, clamping your eyes shut and humming a song very loud to block out anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved notions.

Well it makes me happy that you know what to do for YOU. Thank goodness I dont rely on YOU to do for ME.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Nothing you say? I suppose those ancients who painted UFO's in them caves and carvings on rocks is nothing either. Oh lets not forget about the mention in ancient texts...including the bible. Its all nothing I suppose.

All those things prove that what we see in the NASA video are alien-craft, plasma-entities, Shoggoths-in-a-vacuum (personally, my favorite theory)?

One has nothing to do with the other and you are trying to change the subject.

Originally posted by RFBurns
You cant either prove its ice or lens anomaly because for one...

You're right, I can't.

However, we can show through a preponderance of evidence what it probably is or isn't.

Now, I'll ask again. What evidence that the objects in the video are whatever sort of extraterrestrial phenemenon you believe them to be (and here comes Majorion..."I didn't say they are extraterrestrial! They could be ultraterrestrial! They could be faeries!" Please, spare us and just answer the question).