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

reply to post by ArMaP



I couldn't open RfBurns' video
Something interesting there?

Originally posted by zorgon

If the 'notches' in the tether video are 'camera artifacts'

WHY are they in more than one direction in one frame? Would they not all be the SAME direction as in the attempts to reproduce the effect show?

WHY do they change shape?

I haven't seen all the objects, so I can not say it for sure, but the direction of the notch should change with the position of the object in the frame, meaning that all objects in the top left of the frame, for example, that have a notch should show the notch in the same position, while those in the top right of the frame should the the notch in the same place but not in the same place as the ones in the top left.

The same applies to the general shape of the object, they look "squashed" on the left side of the frame and on the right side but they look round in the middle.

WHY do people debunking STS 75 refuse to look at STS 80 for comparison?

Although I do not consider myself a STS-75 debunker and I do not refuse to look at the videos from STS-80, the reason I am ignoring them when talking about STS-75 is because, as I have said several times, I don't think they show the same thing, I consider the ice crystals explanation the most likely to be the correct one for the STS-75 video but I think that this explanation can not be used to explain the STS-80 objects.

Perhaps ArMaP has the time to take the images from the 11th to the 31st in the 1024 format size and put them all together into an animation?

I haven't had much time in these last two weeks, but now I have a little more, I will see what I can do.

reply to post by depthoffield


I also think that some people get the idea of "in front" and "behind" because of those false shadows, it is easy to accept that as in indication of depth in the image, that's the way we "work", we look for any clue that can give us any idea about the three dimensions we are expecting to see in everything.

And I think, as I said before, that the false shadows an electronic origin, not optical.

Two weeks ago my daughter had a dream that donuts came and attacked Earth. After seeing this thread it made me laugh even more.

reply to post by deccal


Which video, the "MOV" file or the other on his last post from the previous page?

If you are talking about the MOV then it's the same video, it just looks a little different, for worse, in my opinion.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by deccal

 

Which video, the "MOV" file or the other on his last post from the previous page?

If you are talking about the MOV then it's the same video, it just looks a little different, for worse, in my opinion.

The latest video I posted is not the same video as the MOV link. The latest video I posted is of STS 80 and is on the ATS media server. Perhaps the other member cant view flv files?

The MOV link is to the 46Mb size MOV of STS 75. It is not running through a player. Right click, save as, then use a player to view it.

IF you think thats worse than those youtube videos....hmm I wonder what codec your using and if its up to date!!



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by ArMaP
And I think, as I said before, that the false shadows an electronic origin, not optical.

Thanks!
Of course, where i said that sharpening is optical? of course it is in electronics.

Anyway, people don't understand that shadows in the STS-75 image do not exist, (stars making shadows? etc) simply because they are just recorded artifacts. But, in their "ignorance" (not in the bad sense, but in the "not-knowing technical facts" sense), they erroneous use the shadows to judge the reality behind some artifacted image.



[edit on 17/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 17/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns

 

I got the video, thanks!

Although I have not examine it carefully it looks a worse copy than the one I got from YouTube, which looks less washed-out.

Seeing it at 1 frame per second it also looks strange, with some frames going backward and then forward again.

It looks like there was some conversion that went bad somewhere.

There is one section of it that did glitch, just before that large object passes through the frame. It had to be something during coversion from the 770Mb AVI over to the 46Mb MOV. I posted the MOV because the host site limits upload speed at 24kps and that 770Mb AVI would have taken more than 8 hours to upload!!

I did post, that if you want the 770Mb AVI, send an email via my website linked in my signature and we can arrange for sending you a DVD of it.

Zorgon asked for one too, so once I get his info and yours they will be in the mail.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns


STS 75 MOV

There ya go. Right click, save as.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]

this one..

Originally posted by deccal

Originally posted by RFBurns


STS 75 MOV

There ya go. Right click, save as.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]

this one..

Do you have quicktime player or VLC player? Either one of those is best to view that MOV file. MOV files are Apple video file format.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Your "cat eye" effect may be oval in shape, but where is the hole in the center? Where is the moving pulsing black line from center to outer edge, and most importantly, where is the morphing notch where in the sts video, some are square, some are double square, some are triangular shaped.??
Picking photos that mimick the sts video objects hardly proves anything friend.

It proves something, my friend.... but you can't see "behind of what you see"

Cat eye effect is a FACT. You should learn about it.
Bokeh is a FACT. Donuts-like bokeh from catadioptric mirror lens is a FACT. You should learn about it.

So, donutz-like bokeh, squashed to the center of the frame direction due to cat-eye effect, is a FACT. If you refer to my personal example of bokeh without center black hole, this is because my camera-lens it is not catadioptric mirror lens. But, i posted above examples of donutz-like bokeh from catadioptric lens, why you ignore that? You ask me to argument my solution, and yet you ignore it? Is this your approach here, or it was just a miss from you (i hope)?

We see here in STS-75 just donutz squashed exactly like cat-eye effect do to bokeh. Re-read my posts back, where i showed this.


About notches again... where is your logic and attention?

Originally posted by zorgon
Couple of questions...
If the 'notches' in the tether video are 'camera artifacts'
WHY are they in more than one direction in one frame? Would they not all be the SAME direction as in the attempts to reproduce the effect show?
WHY do they change shape?

Originally posted by RFBurns
You make excellent points on the notches. And I fully agree. If they were simple lens effects, those notches should be consistant across the paths where the objects are moving. And more than one object does move along similar paths, or very very close to another object's path, close enough to where the lens effect would be consistant.
But they are not consistant.

Now you, the "askers", please see this video about notches beeing strictly obedient to position in the frame, demonstrating LENS effect:



You see?


Not yet convinced?


Then you SHOULD REALLY SEE THIS, if you dare to put your mind to work:



Some frames for you, to see how notches are NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL THE FRAME, as you superficially expect when dismissing the lens effect:

Two notches up:



One notch down:


No notch:



I quote the comment for youtube poster of this, it explains a lot:

A CCTV camera tracking an unknown light source in Little Hulton, UK on September 12th 1993. When out of focus, the object appears donut shaped with notches which shift according to it's position within the field of view. Notice also the onset of barrel distortion as the object approaches the optical periphery. The dark diagonal line is merely the shadow of a strand-like object immediately in front of the lens. Whatever the nature of the light source (probably nothing out of the ordinary), this footage is a classic demonstration of how anomalous objects can be conjured through improper use of a camera lens.

These camera artifacts are very similar to those present in NASA's STS-75 tether footage. The camera's zoom lens was probably similar in construction to NASA's MLA*, with 3 guide shafts supporting the lenses (1 vertically opposed to a close pair), and a rotating barrel with cam grooves which displaced the lenses along the optical axis. The notches are merely shadows of the lens guide shafts, and as the object moves vertically within the field of view, various combinations of upper and lower shafts impinge upon the image (the zoom setting is also a factor)

* Monochrome Lens Assembly, fitted to NASA's SIT Vidicon tube cameras.

The donut appearance is often described as an 'airy disc' (named after George Airy). This is a contentious issue, as many people simply google the term and find themselves viewing a computer generated model (ideal) of an aperture induced diffraction pattern. Such models are often enhanced in order to illustrate the faint outer concentric rings produced by constructive/destructive interference of light waves which are out of phase. For some reason, the distinction between an 'airy disc' and an 'airy pattern' is often completely overlooked, leading to unwarranted dismissal of the airy disc theory in the absence of visible outer rings. In reality, the term 'airy disc' merely describes the bright centre of an 'airy pattern' and therefore does not require the presence of visible outer rings. Matters are further complicated when an object is out of focus, which with certain lens configurations results in this donut appearance. Astronomers are known to deliberately defocus stars in order to check the collimation of reflector telescopes, and often refer to the result as an 'out of focus airy disc'.

Unlike NASA's STS-75 tether footage, this video shows a single out of focus object. This is unfortunate, as i believe that if the camera were focussed on a bright more distant object, that object would actually appear to be in the foreground (the same optical illusion responsible for tales of 3 miles wide UFOs 'behind' the tether). Many people seem unable to accept this concept, despite it being intuitively obvious and well understood by those who frequently use cameras. I could attempt an explanation, but experience suggests that it would be futile. Instead i am going to pose a question: During the STS-75 tether footage, the camera oscillates on it's pan/tilt unit following remote aim adjustment. If the so-called UFOs were really behind the tether, then why was their displacement considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation? The only plausible explanation is that the so-called UFOs were actually in the foreground. This basic principle (motion parallax) can be appreciated by anyone with a pair of eyes, and is therefore not easily dismissed due to lack of relevant experience.
more...

=========

Originally posted by zorgon
Silly Lemmings

if you say...

reply to post by RFBurns


There is no need for some much trouble, if you consider that the MOV is close enough to the AVI then I do not need the AVI.

Thanks anyway.

reply to post by depthoffield


Nice try to turn this around onto me when your earlier "cat eye" photos of out of focus Christmas tree lights dont have any similarity to the objects in the sts 75 video.

Try again man....



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns

 

There is no need for some much trouble, if you consider that the MOV is close enough to the AVI then I do not need the AVI.

Thanks anyway.

Ok just offered in case you want it. The MOV obviously will be compressed from that 770Mb AVI, so the offer stands if you change your mind.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Of course, where i said that sharpening is optical? of course it is in electronics.

I was not talking about sharpening, sharpening is symmetric, that effect is not.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I was not talking about sharpening, sharpening is symmetric, that effect is not.

If you look closely different analogic movies no matter which one, any old analog recordings, or, for example the one i posted with disc with notches shot by the camera surveillance, you can see that many times the shadows are not symmetric, but consistent within the frame. And this is because, in the analog area, the ascending transition from blacks to whites, the shape of the electronic signal, may differ from descending transition from whites to blacks. Theoretically, the transitions should be equal and perfect vertical, as pure rectangle signal it is. Practically, in analogic area those transitions are not perfect vertical, and are influenced by the ability of elecronics to reproduce the high frequencies, sharpening aplied to compensate losses in limited high spectrum, the method of recording the signal (magnetic tapes), the effects in the senzor itself etc.

Anyway, we can agree that the shadows don't exist in reality, but only in recorded reproduced image, so, people who use shadows to judge the image are fooled by some technical artifacts.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Hi RFBurns!

Where did you find those pictures of the ancient discs? I don't think I have ever seen them before. Please provide links and information!

Very interesting.

They are covered in the documentry secret space 2.

Here is pt1

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield

 

Nice try to turn this around onto me when your earlier "cat eye" photos of out of focus Christmas tree lights dont have any similarity to the objects in the sts 75 video.

It have similarity: the squashing in the direction of the center. LIKE IN THE nasa. A catadioptric lens, should squash the bokeh in the same manner too, but maintaining the donut shape.
And it does:



Taken from catadioptric, en.wikipedia.org...



But, since it seems you are in full denying process.... i think whatever arguments putting your brains to work is futile.

Add the inexisting real notches, since they are a lens effect, add transparent bokeh properties, add the false shadows, and add a lot of ignorance in the field of technical facts, and see UFOs, critters, whatever you want. Lower the level of knowledge means easy to see UFOs, paranormal orbs whatever. And your basic argument? "Show me exactly the same donuts like in STS 75" (for this i really have to buy exactly the NASA camera, to shoot in low light conditions, and to not use at all the brains and knowledge...and since this is almost imposiblle, you are feel safe in whatever unsuported claims you make..this is thinkink cowardice i may say...typical ignorance... And even that surveillance camera donut, you dismiss only because is not from NASA camera, but showing same effects based on the same causes it means nothing to you)



[edit on 17/2/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


Ya add this, add that, what you seem to completely ignore or just dont get is that no matter what you do to your examples in adding, its not the exact same thing in the sts video, your having to add something to mimick what is real in the sts video..hardly any credible means to say the cause of the objects and morphing notches and pulsing spiral line is becasue of a lens.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by cropmuncher


Good documentary, but thats not where I got those images. But thanks for linking that video for us!


Cheers!!!!